Hamline University
DigitalCommons@Hamline
School of Education and Leadership Student
Capstone Projects
School of Education and Leadership
Spring 2018
Teaching And Learning Pragmatics And Speech Acts: An
Instructional Pragmatics Curriculum Development Project For EFL
Learners
Bridget Borer
Hamline University
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_cp
Part of the Education Commons
Recommended Citation
Borer, Bridget, "Teaching And Learning Pragmatics And Speech Acts: An Instructional Pragmatics
Curriculum Development Project For EFL Learners" (2018). School of Education and Leadership Student
Capstone Projects. 176.
https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_cp/176
This Capstone Project is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Education and Leadership at
DigitalCommons@Hamline. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Education and Leadership Student
Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Hamline. For more information, please
contact digitalcommons@hamline.edu.
TEACHING AND LEARNING PRAGMATICS AND SPEECH ACTS:
AN INSTRUCTIONAL PRAGMATICS CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
FOR EFL LEARNERS
by
Bridget Maureen Borer
A capstone submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Arts in English as a Second Language
Hamline University
St. Paul, Minnesota
May, 2018
Primary Advisor: Patty Born Selly
Content Advisor: Anne DeMuth
Peer Reviewers: Erin Mullin and Mya Shaftel
2
This capstone project is wholeheartedly dedicated to the memory of my first child and
oldest son, Philip Charles Borer Nelson, who was a teacher to me and many others from
the very moment of his birth until his untimely death.
3
We are not born human in any but a biological sense; it is only by immersion in the
“ocean of language and dialogue” fed by the springs of cultural tradition that we can
learn to know ourselves and others and thus learn the ways of being human.
-Daisaku Ikeda
4
I offer a very special thank you to Letitia Basford and Joe Lewis for all of their
encouragement and support over the past several years and especially the past few
months. The gratitude I feel is immeasurable.
Thank you also to Mike Reynolds, Anne DeMuth, Patty Born Selly, Mya Shaftel and
Erin Mullin for helping me through the final phases of this capstone project.
And thank you to my family, especially my younger son, Jordan, who has overcome so
much and continues to be brave and loving every day.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The Topic and Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Overview of the Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
My Journey into the Realm of Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A Focus on Pragmatics When Learning a Second Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A Curriculum Development Project for Learning Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Speech Act Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Interlanguage and Interlanguage Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Instructional Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Conventional Forms of Instruction with Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Explicit Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Culturally Relevant Collaborative Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Implicature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Presupposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Deixis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6
Speech Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Commissives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Expressives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Indirect Speech Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Context and Speech Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Apologizing as an Expressive Speech Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Interlanguage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Interlanguage Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Pragmatic Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Pragmalinguistic Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Sociopragmatic Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Instructional Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Exposure versus Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Implicit and Explicit Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
The EFL Environment and Learner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Project Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
CHAPTER THREE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7
Overview of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Project Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Teaching Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
The EFL Setting for Instruction in Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
The EFL Learner as Audience for Instruction in Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Project Description, Course Design, and Timeline for Units/Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
CHAPTER FOUR: CRITICAL REFLECTION
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
What I Have Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
The Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Implications for Research and Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Limitations of this Curriculum Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Future Projects and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Benefits to English Language Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Appendix A: Sample of Lesson Design Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix B: Sample of Course Syllabus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
8
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The Topic and Project
The intent of this capstone project is the advancement of instructional pragmatics as a
component of interlanguage pragmatic development. More specifically, the focus is on
operationalizing instructional pragmatics in an English as a foreign language (EFL)
teaching and learning environment in order to enhance the pragmatic competence of adult
English learners (ELs) when performing the expressive speech act of apologizing in
English. The following question best iterates this undertaking: What might an
instructional pragmatics curriculum for adult EFL learners look like? This curriculum
development project is designed as a speaking skills course consisting of several lessons
for intermediate to advanced level ELs in an EFL environment using research-based
instructional techniques focused on improving interlanguage pragmatic competence when
producing the expressive speech act of apologizing in English.
Overview of the Chapter
In this chapter I explain my interest in the subject of pragmatics. I also discuss my
reason for doing a curriculum development project intended to enhance the pragmatic
competence of adult EFL learners and in turn improve their overall communicative
competence. I briefly address teaching pragmatics in relation to three important
components of pragmatics research which are Speech Act Theory, interlanguage
pragmatics, and instructional pragmatics. I explain some of the more conventional forms
9
of EFL instruction and how integrating pragmatics is useful. I also briefly address what it
means to teach pragmatics explicitly and how this is beneficial. In addition, I include an
explanation for how culturally relevant, collaborative learning enhances instruction. I
then summarize the chapter and give a brief overview of chapters two, three, and four.
My Journey into the Realm of Pragmatics
I was first interested in the subject of pragmatics while taking a linguistics course for
English teachers. In that course I learned that pragmatics as a level of linguistics can be
defined as the study of language in context, including any context where language is
used. Pragmatics goes beyond the sounds, words, or sentences which compose language.
Pragmatics involves discourse and related speech acts and the various levels of meaning
and perception when a speech act is delivered and received by a speaker and hearer. In
comparison to the other levels of linguistics, pragmatics seemed more intangible to me—
its parameters more difficult to define since the many contexts where language is used are
so broad and varied. Plus, in any discourse situation the number of speech acts and their
potential meanings seems endless. The extensiveness of pragmatics and its intersection
with language and culture made the subject of pragmatics fascinating to me.
In addition, through the study of pragmatics, I became more aware of the impact that
language choices have in our lives, and how these choices are heavily influenced by
culture. As a native speaker (NS) of English I realized how I take my home country
(USA) and its cultural norms and my everyday usage of English for granted. Through the
lens of pragmatics, I more thoroughly appreciated the difficulty that second language
(L2) learners have in acquiring culturally appropriate L2 linguistic forms. The struggle to
learn a second language with all of its linguistic and sociocultural complexities became
10
more salient to me. And, as a language teacher, this realization was important in helping
me develop more empathy for my students.
A Focus on Pragmatics When Learning a Second Language
When a learner is acquiring their second language, the focus for teaching and learning
is often on form and function. This means that the L2 learner studies and learns
numerous linguistic forms (words, phrases, sentences, grammatical structures) and is then
offered a generalized sense of how they function in commonplace discourse situations.
The limitation of this approach is that the context when using a language can vary
significantly from moment to moment. Language contexts include many factors such as
social roles, social situations and cultural norms. When an L2 learner does not
understand the sociocultural norms associated with the L2, mistakes and
misunderstandings can ensue. These mistakes or misunderstandings are referred to as
pragmatic failures. For example, if an EL ignores or downplays a compliment given to
them by a native speaker of English, they might be perceived as being impolite because
the generalized cultural norm or expectation for responding to a compliment in English is
to acknowledge the compliment and offer some form of thanks. Lack of understanding
about the sociocultural norms behind the language can cause unfortunate misperceptions
about the L2 learner. Conversational misunderstandings that lead to misperceptions can
cause the learner to experience lowered confidence and self-efficacy (Bardovi-Harlig &
Mahan-Taylor, 2003; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). By focusing on the pragmatics level of
linguistics in teaching and learning, the L2 learner can gain a broader sense of target
language (TL) form-function-context mappings, which include cultural norms and social
rules of discourse. Increased pragmatic knowledge will assist the L2 learner in making
11
better linguistic and more socially acceptable language choices in real time. Making
better choices leads to more success as a user of the language and increases the learner’s
proficiency, confidence and self-efficacy (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003;
Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). Consequently, learning about pragmatics, recognizing
pragmatic competence as a key language skill, and acquiring pragmatic competence
through study and practice is crucial for language learners. Pragmatic competence
increases their ability to successfully navigate a variety of social situations, prevent
misunderstandings, eliminate misperceptions, and increase overall competence and
confidence, which encourages more motivated learning and in turn leads to further L2
development and fluency.
A Curriculum Development Project for Learning Pragmatics
I have chosen to do a curriculum development project with a focus on developing
pragmatics instruction for adult EFL learners because I feel it should be an important part
of any EFL curriculum. As an EFL teacher, I have noticed how learners sometimes use
English language expressions in unusual or inappropriate ways. I have found that it is
difficult to explain to students why a phrase that is grammatically correct was used
inappropriately. I have attributed some of this difficulty to the paucity of material for
teaching and learning pragmatics. I realized that this lack of availability of instructional
materials related to pragmatics created limitations for both teachers and learners. It is my
hope that a curriculum development project that incorporates authentic and relevant
teaching materials for reinforcing pragmatic development will lead to more EFL
programs that highlight the importance of pragmatics and make instructional pragmatics
a regular curriculum component. This curriculum development project, which employs
12
the latest instructional pragmatics techniques, specifically focuses on the teaching and
learning of one of the most commonly used expressive speech acts, the apology. By
practicing the speech act of apologizing, learners will gain insight into how a common
speech act in the L2 can be utilized effectively and appropriately in contextualized
discourse. Hopefully, this focus on speech acts will inspire new and improved speaking
curriculum content in EFL learning environments.
The concept of speech acts is vital to the materialization of instruction in pragmatics.
Speech Act Theory is one of three theoretical frameworks underlying the pragmatics
curriculum in this project. The other two frameworks are interlanguage pragmatics and
instructional pragmatics. In this next section I will briefly explain the basics of these
constructs and relate them to this project.
Speech Act Theory
Speech Act Theory categorizes the many ways in which discourse occurs in everyday
speech (Cutting, 2008). Some examples of speech acts are greetings and farewells,
making requests, accepting or refusing requests, giving compliments and responding to
compliments, offering apologies, giving thanks, and so on. The number of speech acts is
indeterminable; however, Speech Act Theory suggests that any act of speech can fall into
a set number of categories which are defined by Searle (1976) as Representatives,
Directives, Commissives, Declarations, and Expressives. For the current project, the
focus will be on the expressive speech act of apologizing. Expressive speech acts are
viewed as the most emotive speech acts and express a psycho-emotional state (Ronan,
2015). Examples of other Expressives include greeting, thanking, complaining, boasting,
congratulating, condoling, and so on. This curriculum project will concentrate on the
13
conventional routines and strategies for apologizing in English. Apologies have been
extensively researched in interlanguage pragmatics literature, so there is more reliable
information about their general use.
Interlanguage and Interlanguage Pragmatics
Interlanguage is the language that L2 learners acquire or internalize as they learn a
second language and become more proficient in their use of the L2. According to
Selinker (as cited in Tarone, 2014), an L2 learner’s interlanguage is viewed as a linguistic
system all its own that can change with experience and greater proficiency in the target
language. Interlanguage pragmatics examines the pragmatic abilities of the L2 learner as
they acquire knowledge of the pragmatic norms of the L2. Knowing how to properly
greet a stranger, make a request to your boss, give a compliment to your classmate, or
apologize to a co-worker for being late are all examples of situations where pragmatic
competence is required in order to facilitate harmonious interactions. The language that
is used by the L2 learner in an L2 situation is an indication not only of their linguistic
knowledge, but also their pragmatic knowledge.
The study of interlanguage pragmatics involves understanding pragmatic development
as well as differences in pragmatic norms. Interlanguage pragmatics research reveals that
acquiring pragmatic competence in the L2 happens in stages and in conjunction with the
acquisition of linguistic forms (Rose, 2000; Rose, 2009). This means that more complex
aspects of pragmatic norms are acquired as L2 fluency develops. The research also
shows that pragmatic norms are driven by sociocultural norms (Hinkel, 1994; Hinkel,
1996). Although there are universal pragmatic norms shared between languages and
cultures, many pragmatic norms are language and culture specific or context specific and
14
must be acquired through exposure and/or instruction in the L2. Research related to
interlanguage pragmatics will guide this project in terms of curriculum content and
learner development.
Instructional Pragmatics
Instructional pragmatics is a component of interlanguage pragmatics and its purpose is
the development and utilization of the most advantageous teaching methods for
improving L2 learners’ interlanguage pragmatic competence (Ishihara, 2010; Ishihara &
Cohen, 2010; Vellenga, 2008). Instructional pragmatics is a relatively new field of
endeavor; however, the current literature is encouraging because the research
demonstrates positive outcomes in learner proficiency when teaching pragmatics as a
core curricular component. The latest research involving the most effective instructional
pragmatic techniques and methodologies will be operationalized for this project (Ishihara
& Cohen, 2010).
By incorporating Speech Act Theory, interlanguage pragmatics, and instructional
pragmatics in this project, I will provide a basis for teaching pragmatics that will be
grounded in well-defined language teaching research and pedagogy and can be imitated,
further developed, and implemented within a typical EFL program.
Conventional Forms of Instruction with Pragmatics
Based on my experience as an EFL instructor, focusing specifically on teaching
pragmatics to EFL learners is not commonplace even though pragmatic knowledge is
useful for language learners to acquire. English as a foreign language is usually taught
with a focus on pronunciation, vocabulary, and prescriptive grammar, while developing
the productive (speaking and writing) and receptive (listening and reading) skills. EFL
15
instruction employs a range of methodologies that support second language acquisition.
These include approaches such as Contrastive Analysis, Noticing/Awareness, Focus on
Form, Input/Intake, Ethnography, Controlled Practice and Negative Feedback (Vellenga,
2008). While applying these instruction types, the characteristic teaching and learning
goals have been to increase language proficiency in terms of generating more intelligible
pronunciation, utilizing more complex grammar structures, broadening lexical range, and
raising competency levels for the receptive and productive skills. Through research in
pragmatics, it has become more evident that these formulae for instruction can also be
effectively used for specifically teaching pragmatics. For example, with Contrastive
Analysis, pragmatic norms of the learner’s L1 and L2 can be compared and contrasted in
the classroom in order to analyze whether norms of the L1 transfer to the L2 or interfere
with the L2. With the Noticing/Awareness instructional practice, teaching materials that
augment conscious awareness about language use and context can play a strong role in
understanding L2 pragmatic norms. Regarding the use of Focus on Form, in pragmatics
instruction linguistical forms can be presented within a speech acts framework including
multiple functions within different context scenarios. This shift would lead to a formfunction-context mapping of the L2. The Input/Intake mode of instruction is highly
regarded in EFL speaking lessons where providing comprehensible input is a basic
requirement for producing uptake and acquiring intake. By including materials and
discussions on pragmatic norms, as well as realistic examples of language in context in
the L2, the pragmatics input would be heightened and would lead to elevated intake of
pragmatic understanding. Ethnography in the classroom is associated with the
observation and recording of language use and development. When EFL learners are
16
pragmatics ethnographers, it is beneficial for them to journal speech act observations for
both the L1 and L2 in order to analyze and infer how speech acts are routinized according
to each language and culture. Controlled Practice involves cognitive processes and
memorization through repeated practice. Because there are a vast number of
conventionalized speech act routines and phrases, many of them can be learned through
practice and memorization. Through explicit instruction in pragmatics, not only could
speech act routines and phrases be memorized, but the related contexts in which they are
used most frequently could be put to memory as well. This type of instruction is useful
especially for beginning learners. Negative Feedback instruction involves actively
correcting learners’ errors in order to facilitate noticing and awareness and is usually
associated with pronunciation, grammatical formulation, or lexical accuracy; however,
corrective feedback regarding pragmatic errors can also be provided to L2 learners in the
classroom. Similarly, presenting videos to learners depicting real (or realistic)
conversations that display pragmatic failures can allow leaners to further examine
pragmatic errors and will generate feedback in the form of classroom discussion.
Largely, standard EFL instruction has not included an emphasis on pragmatics and
developing pragmatic competence (Ishihara, 2010; Kim, 2016; Lai, 2013). The
pragmatics component is usually a residual or secondary factor when teaching forms and
their related functions or the reading, listening, speaking, and writing skills. Although
the above mentioned approaches to instruction could be utilized to teach pragmatics, this
has not been the general situation to date. The aim of this project is to integrate standard
EFL teaching practices with explicit instruction and metapragmatic communication to
promote the learning of L2 pragmatic norms.
17
Explicit Instruction
In many language learning environments an emphasis on implicit and/or inductive
(“bottom up”) teaching is common because it encourages problem solving, studentteacher and student-student interaction, and a more communicative classroom (Parrish,
2006). In language classrooms where communicative competence is the main objective,
this approach is invaluable. When teaching pragmatics, research indicates that it is also
beneficial to include explicit and/or deductive (“top down”) teaching techniques—where
instruction includes rich and overt metapragmatic communication (Taguchi, 2015;
Takahashi, 2010). Explicit instruction in pragmatics involves using detailed
communication about the sociocultural rules and norms of the language being learned.
Explicitly communicating the pragmatic norms associated with the L2 is shown to better
prepare the L2 learner when faced with making pragmatic choices in the L2 (BardoviHarlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003). For this project, an emphasis will be on providing
explicit explanations regarding pragmatics and speech acts during instruction in order to
help students better understand L2 sociocultural norms and principles of discourse.
Culturally Relevant Collaborative Learning
In recent years, there has been a constructive movement toward identifying and
incorporating a culturally relevant framework into English language teaching and
learning. In the EFL classroom this entails recognizing and valuing the learner’s home
culture and its sociocultural norms, especially language-related norms. By comparing
and contrasting the pragmatic norms of the L1 to the norms of English-speaking societies,
learners can think openly, even critically, about the similarities and differences between
the cultures, thereby, subjectively differentiating the norms. Comparing the pragmatic
18
norms of the learner’s L1 to the sociocultural norms of the English-speaking world will
add to the explicit understanding of pragmatics (Ishihara, 2006). This project will
continue the effort to integrate relevant home culture context into the EFL curriculum by
way of teacher-student collaborative talk, critical analysis of language usage, student
group discussions, and purposeful languaging within the classroom. The combination of
explicit instruction with metapragmatic communication, culturally relevant discourse, and
classroom collaborative talk regarding pragmatic norms will be integral to this project as
a means of encouraging pragmatic development for adult EFL learners.
Summary
In this introductory chapter, I have presented my topic: the advancement of
instructional pragmatics as a component of interlanguage pragmatic development. I have
explained the central focus which is operationalizing instructional pragmatics in an EFL
teaching and learning environment in order to enhance the pragmatic competence of adult
ELs when performing the expressive speech act of apologizing in English. In relation to
this topic, I have shared my personal story of how I came to develop an interest in the
subject of pragmatics. I have also shared why a curriculum development project with a
focus on teaching pragmatics is necessary for developing overall communicative
competence for L2 learners. I have briefly described the major research components that
will guide the development of my project, which are pragmatics, speech act theory,
interlanguage pragmatics, and instructional pragmatics. I have touched on the teaching
methodologies that will be used in the project. I have also addressed the importance of
including explicit instruction, culturally relevant content, and cross-cultural discussion in
the classroom curriculum.
19
In Chapter Two, I provide a more comprehensive review of the literature regarding
pragmatics, Speech Act Theory, interlanguage pragmatics and pragmatic competence,
instructional pragmatics, the adult EFL learner and the EFL teaching and learning
environment. For Chapter Three, I will describe my project in detail, including a
rationale and framework for the project such as the timeline, setting, audience, and
teaching appproaches. In Chapter Four, I will reflect on the building and completion of
the project and offer insights into the implications for future projects and the possible
limitations or improvements needed when attempting similar projects.
20
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The intent of this capstone project is the advancement of instructional pragmatics as a
component of interlanguage pragmatic development. More specifically, the focus is on
operationalizing instructional pragmatics in an EFL teaching and learning environment in
order to enhance the pragmatic competence of adult EFL learners when performing the
expressive speech act of apologizing in English. Creating instructional pragmatics
curriculums is a newly emerging L2 teaching endeavor. This movement is prompted by
research in interlanguage pragmatics showing that pragmatic competence is as crucial as
linguistic competence in L2 proficiency (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001). The purpose of this
project is to develop an instructional pragmatics curriculum that is suitable for an EFL
teaching and learning environment. The curriculum for this project combines
conventional teaching approaches with explicit instruction and culturally relevant
collaborative learning. This curriculum development project is designed as a speaking
skills course consisting of several lessons for adult EFL learners. The project relies on
research-based instructional pragmatics techniques focused on improving learners’
interlanguage pragmatic competence and speaking performance when apologizing in
English.
In this chapter I review the most current and relevant literature regarding pragmatics,
which is a major component of the study of linguistics, and includes: Speech Act Theory
21
and expressive speech acts, especially routines and strategies for performing the
expressive speech act of apologizing; interlanguage and interlanguage pragmatics and
what they mean in terms of acquiring a second language; pragmatic competence and the
difference between pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence; instructional
pragmatics and effective approaches to teaching higher level pragmatic skills; the need
for pragmatics instruction in EFL classrooms; and the needs and goals of adult learners in
an EFL environment. Finally, I will provide a rationale for how research on these topics
is relevant to the current project and how it will enhance the curriculum component of the
project.
Pragmatics
Pragmatics is language use in context. Language cannot exist outside of its
sociocultural context. Language situations rely heavily on the context involved with each
utterance whether it is written or spoken. A working definition of pragmatics is the study
of language meaning as it is used in context (Huang, 2014). With this definition in mind,
there are two parts of pragmatics, the linguistic or language portion and the context. The
linguistic aspect during a discourse event is the actual utterances that occur—the words
and their semantic meanings along with grammar or syntax—while the context is the
related environment, including any consequential factors at play during the discourse
event, such as the people, place, culture, and time.
What are the theoretical components most often considered when studying pragmatics
or language use in context? According to Huang (2014), “The central topics of inquiry of
pragmatics include implicature, presupposition, speech acts, deixis, and reference (p. 2).”
For the purposes of this project, the main focus will be on speech acts which will be
22
covered more in-depth further on in this review. In order to create a more comprehensive
understanding of pragmatics, a brief discussion on the other four topics of inquiry is also
required.
Implicature
Implicature, also called inference, involves implied meanings during discourse as
opposed to linguistic/semantic or literal meanings. It is often the case that the implied
meaning of an utterance is very different and seems unrelated to the linguistic meaning
(Huang, 2014). For example, if A asks B “Do you want to go to the movies?” and B
says, “I’m not feeling too good,” the answer B gave will be understood by A through its
implied meaning, which is No, I do not want to go to the movies because I am not feeling
well. An in-depth analysis of implicature can be attributed to H.P. Grice (1969) who
conceptualized the topic of implicature as it relates to meaning with the theories of
Conversational Implicature—most meanings within conversations are inferred—as well
as the Co-operative Principles. The Co-operative Principles consist of four maxims for
co-operative discourse—Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. These principles are
considered to be the agreed upon conventions that are ideally operational during
discourse (Cutting, 2008; Huang, 2014). The Quantity maxim states that the amount of
information during discourse should be proportionate to the situation—not too much, not
too little. The maxim of Quality says that discourse should be truthful, honest, and
evidential. The Relation maxim suggests that all discourse should be relevant or
pertinent. And the Manner maxim suggests that discourse be concise, coherent, orderly,
and unambiguous. Obviously, these principles are not always in play during discourse
events. Often they are ignored, violated, or flouted. Implicature and the Co-operative
23
Principles are based on discourse comportments that appear to be universally understood
and function according to conversational requirements within many language and cultural
contexts (Cutting, 2008).
Tied to the topic of implicature is the notion of conversational politeness. Leech’s
politeness maxims illustrate the compulsory role that politeness plays in discourse. He
attached his Politeness Principle to Grice’s Co-operative Principle to clarify the
connection between politeness and co-operation between speakers during discourse
(Shahrokhi & Shirani Bidabadi, 2013; Spencer-Oatey & Jiang, 2003). Brown and
Levinson (1987) suggest a different, broader set of politeness maxims that include
politeness norms across cultures and the notion of face, as in positive and negative face
and face saving strategies. Politeness maxims in conjunction with conversational
implicature and the co-operative principles help to conceptualize discourse in terms of
implied meaning and as a function of human behavior beyond just uttered words.
Presupposition
Presupposition comprises underlying assumptions that are taken for granted. These
truths do not have to be upheld as hard or concrete facts; they can depend on word
meaning or semantics as well as personal beliefs shared by both the speaker and hearer at
the beginning of a conversation. The presupposed knowledge or truths act as background
conditions during discourse (Bergmann, Currie Hall & Ross, 2007; Huang, 2014). An
example of presupposition is the statement, The president of the US is hard-working. The
presupposition trigger in this statement is the fact that the US has a president, which is
common knowledge. Although the rest of the sentence cannot be assumed to be common
knowledge or truthful, it might be presupposed to be true by both the speaker and the
24
hearer depending on their beliefs, background, or experiences. Presupposition operates at
a subconscious level during discourse and emerges as common knowledge or basic truths
that both the speaker and hearer agree upon without the requirement of having to overtly
discuss them.
Deixis
Deixis examines language use in relation to the time, place, and speaker of an
utterance. Deictic expressions point to the thing that they are referring to (almost literally
in some cases as in when we point at a thing and say, That over there!), although they do
not inherently refer to anything specific (Bergmann et al., 2007; Cutting, 2008; Huang,
2014). Spatial deictic expressions use words such as here and there. Temporal deictic
expressions, or time deixis, consist of words such as now, then, and later. Personal deixis
uses pronouns such as we, you, and they. Deictic expressions are context dependent
because without contextual knowledge the expressions would have limited meaning. She
is there now is an example of a deictic expression that would be confusing without
appropriate context. Although not expressed in the same way, deixis is universal across
languages because all languages include reference to time, space, and person (Huang,
2014).
Reference
Reference in pragmatics corresponds to how individual words or phrases refer to
entities, such as people, objects, or ideas, within a conversation or text (Cutting, 2008;
Huang, 2014). Everything that can be spoken of or communicated about has a potential
referential expression. Referential expressions include everything from proper names
and common nouns to descriptive noun phrases, as well as verbs to describe actions
25
(Huang, 2014). Referencing is semantic as it entails the use of words or phrases that
describe things and provide meaning. It is also pragmatic because when referring to
people, objects, or ideas, contextual factors influence meaning and shape discourse.
Referents can be either exophoric or endophoric. Exophoric referents are expressions
that have not been previously referred to in the discourse event while endophoric
referents refer back to entities that were previously mentioned. A simple example of
exophoric/endophoric referencing is, The man petted the dog. It bit him. In the latter
sentence the endophoric pronouns it and him refer to the dog and the man in the former
sentence, which uses exophoric referents. Referencing not only creates meaning in
discourse through mutually understood words and phrases, it also causes discourse to be
more efficient and cohesive through the use of substitutes like pronouns (Cutting, 2008).
Referencing is a pragmatic concern because referents used in discourse rely not only on
semantic meaning but also on related context.
Speech Acts
Speech acts are an integral part of the exploration of pragmatics. Speech acts can be
defined as utterances or a string of utterances (the uttering of a string of morphemes,
words, or sentences) that consist of a propositional meaning or locutionary act, an
illocutionary force, and a perlocutionary force. The propositional meaning of a speech
act is its linguistical or literal meaning. The illocutionary force is the speaker’s implied
meaning of the utterance—the speaker’s meaning as it relates to their state of mind and
the context. The perlocutionary force of a speech act is the end result or effect on the
hearer in response to the speaker (Holtgraves, 2007; Huang, 2014; Intachakra, 2004;
Searle, 1976). For example, the propositional meaning of the statement “I’m cold”
26
indicates that the person making the statement is in the state of feeling cold. The
illocutionary force of this utterance could imply that the speaker wants the window
closed or the heat turned up. The perlocutionary force might result in the hearer closing
the window or turning up the heat.
Unsurprisingly, there are many different types of speech acts and generalizations
about their nature, usage, and effect are long debated. According to Searle (1976),
speech acts can be categorized according to their illocutionary force or the intended
meaning that the speaker tries to convey. Searle created five categories of speech acts
which are briefly explained below.
Representatives. The first category is any act of speech that commits the speaker to
stating the truth or a fact and is referred to as a Representative. For instance, a statement
such as The sky is blue acts as a true-false statement and represents a truth as viewed by
the speaker. Utterances that assert, suggest, conclude, or describe something are
examples of Representatives.
Directives. The second category in Searle’s taxonomy is Directives, which are speech
acts that get the hearer to do something. With a directive, the speaker is attempting to get
the world to fit their words. Commanding, advising, and challenging are some examples
of Directives.
Commissives. Commissives are the third category of speech acts and they are defined
as speaker utterances that commit to a future action such as making a promise to the
hearer. Pledging, vowing, threatening, or making an offer are also considered
Commissives.
27
Declarations. The fourth category of speech acts is Declarations. A declaration is an
utterance that changes or alters the condition of something. Often declarations are
associated with authority or institutions. Operative statements such as You’re guilty! and
I proclaim you husband and wife are declarative speech acts. Hiring, firing, or resigning
from a job, marrying, naming a newborn baby, or christening a boat are all instances of
declarations.
Expressives. The fifth category of speech acts according to Searle is Expressives.
Expressive speech acts are utterances that express a psychological state of being. The
psycho-emotional state of the speaker is what drives the expressive utterance. The need
to make amends, express regret, apologize for a mistake, show gratitude, greet or
welcome someone, or congratulate a hearer on a job well done are examples of
conditions that prompt expressive speech acts.
The expressive speech act of apologizing is one focus of the pragmatics lessons for
this project and will be explained in more detail further on in this review. At this time it
is important to discuss what it means when a speech act is not direct and its intended
meaning is ambiguous.
Indirect Speech Acts
In almost all languages there are three basic sentence types: declaratives,
interrogatives, and imperatives. A declarative sentence structure is generally associated
with the intended meaning (illocutionary force) of asserting or stating something. An
interrogative is associated with questioning or searching for a fact. An imperative has the
force of ordering or requesting. When the sentence type matches the illocutionary force
or intended meaning, then it is considered to be a direct speech act. When the sentence
28
type does not match the illocutionary force, it is considered to be an indirect speech act
(Cutting, 2008; Huang, 2014; Searle, 1976). For example, the question Did you clean up
your room? is a yes-no interrogative and in its most direct form would be considered a
representative speech act that could be answered with a representative statement of fact,
as in Yes, in fact, I did clean up my room. However, if a parent were to direct this
question to their child, would the intended meaning or illocutionary force be a
representative or a directive? Might this question actually be a directive to clean up your
room? Does the parent already know the room is not cleaned up and is indirectly
commanding the child to clean their room? What if the parent were to use the indirect,
nonconventional, Your room is such a mess! On the surface this exclamatory statement
may be acting as a representative speech act, but indirectly it may be acting as a directive
to clean the room. For L2 learners, the use of indirect speech in the L2 is generally more
difficult to comprehend and control because it necessitates analyzing context and
understanding sociocultural norms along with linguistic rules. Understanding how to
recognize a question in the L2 is simpler than understanding a question that is intended to
be a directive or command. In order to understand indirect speech it is necessary to
recognize contextual factors associated with the speech act and acclimate to the way that
conventionally and nonconventionally indirect speech acts are used in the L2 (Aubrecht,
2013; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Yu, 1999;). Developing this kind of knowledge
can be done by learning about the target language through its sociocultural context which
entails studying the social rules and cultural norms associated with the language. The
complex nature of indirect speech confirms the importance of explicitly teaching
pragmatics and speech acts in the EFL classroom.
29
Context and Speech Acts
Pragmatics is the study of language in context and speech acts are a basic component
of pragmatics, but what are the contextual factors that influence the intended meanings of
speech acts and determine whether the use of a speech act is appropriate? Contextual
factors range from the micro-social to the macro-social and are based on the individual,
society, and culture associated with the language. According to Blum-Kulka and
Olshtain,
…the realization of speech acts in context may stem from at least three different
types of variability: (a) intracultural, situational variability; (b) cross-cultural
variability; (c) individual variability. Thus, there might be systematic differences
in the realization patterns of speech acts, depending on social constraints
embedded in the situation. For example, requests addressed to superiors might
tend, in a given culture, to be phrased in less direct terms than requests addressed
to social inferiors, or vice versa. On another dimension, within the same set of
social constraints, members of one culture might tend to express a request more or
less directly than members of another culture. Finally, individuals within the same
society might differ in their speech act realization patterns, depending on personal
variables such as sex, age, or level of education (1984, p. 197).
The main contextual factors, or variability, that affect the performance of a speech act are
found to be universal and can influence speech act behavior in any language. Some of
these factors are 1) social status—the relative status of the both the speaker and the
hearer; 2) social distance—the speaker and hearer’s familiarity to each other; 3) gender;
4) age; 5) the intensity or seriousness of the situation; 6) the purpose of the speech event;
30
7) the amount of time allowed for the interaction; and 8) the setting or location where the
speech event takes place (Hinkel, 2006, 2014; Ishihara, 2006; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010).
Teaching the appropriate use of speech acts in the L2 requires knowledge about the
sociocultural contextual factors related to the target language. For this project, it will be
crucial to incorporate explicit instruction regarding context and speech act performance
in English. Moreover, classroom discussion comparing and contrasting the most salient
sociocultural factors in connection with offering apologies in the L1 and L2 will be part
of the teaching pedagogy of this project.
Apologizing as an Expressive Speech Act
In English-speaking countries, it is customary to say Excuse me, Pardon me, or I’m
sorry when bumping into another person in a public place; however, in some societies
around the world this type of spoken gesture may not always be required. If an EL in an
English-speaking domain neglects to apologize when it is customary to do so, they might
be viewed as rude by native English speakers. This scenario is an example of how
neglecting to perform a speech act—not apologizing—in an L2 environment can impact
the learner’s experience in that culture. For learners, understanding when and how to
make an apology is important when using the target language.
There are many reasons that a speaker may want to utter an apology to a hearer.
Through the study of pragmatics and discourse analysis, it is possible to develop a better
understanding about what prompts a speaker of any language to apologize for something
and how speakers express those apologies through linguistic routines or strategies. Many
studies have been done on the act of apologizing. According to the Pragmatics and
Speech Acts Bibliography on The Center for Advanced Research on Language
31
Acquisition website (CARLA, 2018), the number of research articles recorded for
apologies is higher than for most other speech acts. Apologies are also found to be one of
the most commonly used acts of speech in everyday life (Cheng, 2017; Intachakra, 2004).
For this review, what defines an apology and how apologies are routinely performed in
English and other languages will be considered.
An apology is a speech act or discourse event used to remediate or rectify a situation
where the speaker has committed some sort of wrong to the hearer. An apology is
usually a post-event act, meaning it occurs after the violation of a social norm has taken
place (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984). An apology can be used to state that the speaker
is sorry, explain what happened, make a repair for the offense, and/or make a promise of
non-recurrence. An apology has the social function of helping the speaker stay on good
terms with the hearer and maintain harmony in the relationship. Apologizing is a sort of
peace offering that sends the message that the speaker is sorry for the wrongdoing, can
account for the mistake, and will not do it again (Cheng, 2017; Intachakra, 2004; Kondo,
2010; Martinez-Flor, 2016; Martinez-Flor & Beltran-Palanques, 2014; Wyatt, 2014).
Apologies are also connected to concepts of politeness and are viewed according to
politeness theories as face-saving devices. Offering an apology is a positive and negative
face-saving strategy because an apology is a face-threatening act (FTA) for both the
speaker and hearer. Positive face is the desire to be part of a group whereas negative face
is the desire to be independent and/or not be imposed upon. Making a sociocultural faux
pas can cause loss of positive face for the speaker, thereby prompting an apology in order
to save face. An appropriate apology remediates the loss of positive face and brings the
speaker/apologizer back into good graces. For the hearer/receiver of an apology, the
32
apology situation can be a FTA causing loss of negative face because the mistake made
by the speaker causes an imposition to the hearer. Through the act of apologizing, the
hearer regains negative face and, ideally, no longer feels imposed upon or
inconvenienced by the speaker (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Cheng, 2017; Intachakra,
2004; Kondo, 2010; Martinez-Flor & Beltran-Palanques, 2014).
According to Cohen, Olshtain & Rosenstein (1986) the semantic formulae or
strategies for offering an apology are predictable and common across languages and
cultures. An apology routine follows a certain pattern and depending on contextual
factors can be shorter or longer in length. The speech act set for apologies follows five
possible routines.
1. An expression of an apology—when the speaker/apologizer says something like
I’m sorry, so sorry, I apologize, excuse me, or forgive me. This routine includes
an Illocutionary Force Indicating Device (IFID) such as the words sorry,
apologize, excuse, forgive, or pardon.
2. Acknowledgement of responsibility—when the speaker/apologizer recognizes
that they have made a mistake and acknowledges that it is their fault. This can be
phrased in different ways, but the basic meaning is I caused that thing to
happen—it was my fault.
3. An explanation or account—when the speaker/apologizer gives an explanation as
to why or how the mistake was committed and is used as an indirect way of
apologizing for the act. An example might be I didn’t see you there (after
bumping into someone) or My car wouldn’t start (after arriving late to an event).
33
4. An offer of repair—when the speaker/apologizer offers to carry out some sort of
action to repair the situation or compensate for damages. This routine or strategy
is usually only used when there is actual damage. An example of this routine
might be, How can I make it up to you?
5. A promise of non-recurrence—when the speaker/apologizer commits to not
letting the mistake happen again. For example, if a coworker were to pick up a
colleague late and cause them both to be late for work, then the apologizer might
say, Tomorrow I’ll be on time, I promise! This type of routine is not as frequently
used as the other routines and is more situation specific (Cohen, et al., 1986;
Intachakra, 2004; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Kondo, 2010; Valipour & Jadidi,
2015; Wyatt, 2014;).
Not every routine is used in all apology situations. Depending on the contextual factors
involved, maybe, only one short routine is used or in more damaging situations a
combination of routines might be called for (Cohen, et al., 1986; Ishihara & Cohen,
2010).
In English and other languages, there are additional strategies for apologizing which
are used as a means of intensifying the apology sequence. These intensifiers include such
features as expressing self-deficiency as in I’m so forgetful; explicitly blaming the self as
in I’m such a dummy!; the use of adverbials such as really and very as in I’m really sorry
and I’m very sorry; repeating multiple intensifiers such as I’m so very, very sorry;
expressing explicit concern for the listener as in Are you okay?; and using multiple
intensifying strategies such as I’m so sorry! Are you alright? I’m really sorry. Finally,
one other possible strategy is that in the face of an apology, the apologizer denies any
34
fault or wrongdoing, thereby, possibly rejecting the need for an apology (Blum-Kulka &
Olshtain, 1984; Cohen, et al, 1986; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010).
As can be seen, there is much to be considered when examining the appropriate way
to apologize in a language. The fact that there are many possible routines to choose from
when making apologies, validates the need for teaching this speech act in an explicit way
in the EFL classroom. Understanding apology routines and relating them to possible
contextual variables is required in order to make appropriate language choices during the
act of making an apology in the L2. In the next section we will consider what it means to
acquire the knowledge needed to make appropriate language choices in the target
language and specifically the pragmatic interlanguage of the L2 learner.
Interlanguage
In order to better understand language learners and improve teaching pedagogy, such
as the pedagogy for teaching and learning pragmatics, it is necessary to understand
important theories regarding the mechanisms at work as learners acquire their L2. One
mechanism is the interlanguage of the L2 learner, which can be described as the learner’s
internalized knowledge of the target language. The interlanguage is the internal linguistic
system that underlies the learner’s knowledge of the L2. This linguistic system is viewed
as a system within its own right. It is believed to operate separately from the L1 and is
compartmentalized as a discrete language within the cognitive framework of the
individual L2 learner (Bardovi-Harlig, 2014; Tarone, 2014). The interlanguage reflects
the accumulated knowledge that the learner has acquired about the L2 and it
approximates the language norms of the target language as they are understood by native
speakers. Generally speaking, as an L2 learner progresses in language proficiency and
35
competence in the TL, the interlanguage of the learner resembles more and more the
native speaker norms of the TL. Establishing how interlanguage develops in L2 learners
is crucial for creating teaching methodologies that are synchronous to developmental
needs. This includes the pragmatic interlanguage of the learner.
Interlanguage Pragmatics
Interlanguage pragmatics is the study of how pragmatic knowledge is expressed in the
interlanguage of L2 learners. It is focused on the L2 learners’ understanding and use of
the L2 in relation to L2 sociocultural norms. It further considers how the development of
the L2 learner’s interlanguage at the pragmatic level changes, either converging or
diverging from native speaker norms (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999, 2014). The study of
interlanguage pragmatics aims to discover “how interlanguage development interacts
with and underpins L2 pragmatic development” (Bardovi-Harlig, 2014, pp. 135-136).
Studies in interlanguage pragmatics include evaluating the pragmatic norms associated
with language use and observing these norms as they are expressed by L1 and L2 users of
language. For example, Hinkel (1996) found that proficient non-native speakers (NNS)
of English could recognize pragmatically appropriate norms in English as well as NS;
however, they were not as able or willing to apply those norms in real life contexts. This
suggests that the pragmatic interlanguage of the NNS reached a NS level of
understanding, but did not always transfer into pragmatic ability. Bardovi-Harlig &
Dornyei (1998) found that EFL students and teachers in Italy and Hungary recognized
grammatical errors in English as much or more than NS of English, and they recognized
them more frequently than pragmatic errors. They also viewed the grammatical errors as
more serious than the pragmatic errors compared to NS. This study suggests that even
36
proficient L2 learners may not recognize the significance of pragmatically inappropriate
behaviors in the L2. These inquiries identify how the pragmatic interlanguage of the L2
learner does not always match NS expectations and indicates how this could be
problematic when communicating in the L2. For this reason, explicitly teaching
pragmatics would be beneficial to all learners.
Interlanguage development comprises both linguistic development and pragmatic
understanding. When these two aspects of interlanguage develop in relation to each
other, this creates communicative competence, including pragmatic competence, which is
what will be discussed in this next section.
Pragmatic Competence
Pragmatic competence lies in how closely the pragmatic interlanguage of the L2
learner approximates target language norms. Pragmatic competence in a second language
can be defined as the convergence of the L2 learner’s pragmatic knowledge and skills
with the accepted sociocultural norms associated with the target language. Developing
pragmatic competence in the L2 involves acquiring both linguistic knowledge as well as
cultural understanding. According to Hinkel (2014), “In language learning and usage,
pragmatic and cultural competence are closely related (p. 399).” The pragmatic
competence of the L2 learner is demonstrated in how well they are able to freely act or
respond in a linguistically appropriate way in a wide variety of language-related
situations in the L2 environment (Chang, 2011; Ishihara, 2006, 2010; Yu, 1999).
Learning, comprehending, and demonstrating the appropriate routines and behaviors for a
variety of speech acts leads to advancement in pragmatic competence. Developing
pragmatic competence in EFL learners is central to this capstone project. In order to
37
create a pedagogical system to improve pragmatic competence, it is important to
recognize its two components. Pragmatic competence can be divided into two parts:
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence.
Pragmalinguistic Competence. Pragmalinguistic competence is the ability to use
linguistic resources to act or respond in a linguistically appropriate way during a speech
act (Chang, 2011; Ishihara, 2006; Taguchi, 2018; Yan & Zhuang, 2010). When an L2
learner is able to access a variety of linguistic expressions and use them appropriately,
pragmalinguistic competence is shown. In contrast, understanding a discourse situation
and sensing the appropriate way to respond, but not having access to a sufficient number
of linguistic expressions could create pragmatic failure at the pragmalinguistic level. In
this regard, linguistic development assists with pragmatic competence.
Sociopragmatic Competence. Sociopragmatic competence is the verbal and nonverbal communicative behavior surrounding a speech act. Competence at this level is
represented by a reasonable understanding of the prevailing cultural norms associated
with the L2. It also includes understanding contextual factors such as age, gender, social
status, social role, and distance in relation to L2 social norms (Chang, 2011; Ishihara,
2006; Taguchi, 2018; Yan & Zhuang, 2010). One example of sociopragmatic
competence involves the use of backchanneling, which requires that hearers provide
speakers with feedback indicating that they are listening. In English, it might mean
repeating words or phrases such as yeah or uh huh. The proper use of backchanneling
indicates language competence at the sociopragmatic level (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010).
Developing pragmatic competence—both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic—
requires the acquisition of linguistic skills along with social skills in the L2 environment.
38
The sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic competence of the L2 learner is generally
measured by way of real life conversations in authentic contexts and the relative number
of successful interactions made by the L2 learner. Studies in pragmatic competence
suggest that the development of pragmalinguistic skills and sociopragmatic skills are
interrelated and will develop correspondingly as long as there is sufficient input/intake
regarding linguistic forms and sociocultural norms (Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998;
Chang, 2010, 2011; Hinkel, 1996; Kasper, 2001; Padilla Cruz, 2013). In the EFL
teaching and learning environment there is a tendency to focus on grammatical and
lexical learning over sociocultural norms. This tendency creates a greater need for
instruction in sociopragmatic skills in order to improve overall pragmatic competence
(Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Ishihara, 2006, 2010; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Vallenga, 2008).
The scarcity of instruction regarding pragmatics in EFL settings and the necessity to learn
pragmatic norms in conjunction with linguistic forms further validates the reasoning for
creating a teaching curriculum focused on pragmatics and speech acts. This type of
curriculum is best described as instructional pragmatics.
Instructional Pragmatics
Interlanguage development, pragmatic and sociocultural norms, and pragmatic
competence are examined together out of a need to understand more completely the
factors that contribute to pragmatic failure on the part of L2 learners. The desire to
realize how pragmatic failure can be overcome, and assist L2 learners with improving
their overall language competence, has led to the creation of a pedagogy for teaching and
learning pragmatics. This pedagogy is referred to as instructional pragmatics (Ishihara,
2006, 2010; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Vellenga, 2008).
39
Even L2 learners with a high level of grammatical ability can experience
pragmatically faulty interactions or misunderstandings. The fact that many pragmatic
norms positively transfer from L1 to L2 does not guarantee that L2 learners will achieve
sufficient pragmatic competence in the L2. In addition, L2 learners who are immersed in
the L2 environment may not always acquire pragmatic abilities in line with native
speakers (Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin, 2005; Halenko & Jones, 2011; Taguchi, 2018). It is
evident that the amount of input a learner is exposed to in the L2 positively impacts the
acquisition of L2 norms. According to Schmidt’s cognitive theory of noticing, attention,
and awareness (the noticing hypothesis), the act of noticing a linguistic element in the L2
via input is the first step toward acquisition of that element (Alcon Soler, 2008; Ishihara
& Cohen, 2010). Although noticing does not automatically equate to acquisition, it does
contribute to the process. Once a learner has noticed something about the L2, the next
step is to pay attention to that element in a conscious way; eventually bringing one’s
attention to total awareness of the element, and then retaining or acquiring that element to
be utilized and demonstrated toward increased competence (Bu, 2012; Ishihara & Cohen,
2010; Rose, 2005; Takahashi, 2010). The goal of instructional pragmatics is to assist this
cognitive process of noticing, paying attention to, and bringing awareness to the
pragmatic norms of the L2 in order to increase the learner’s pragmatic knowledge and
competency (Alcon Soler, 2008; Ishihara, 2010; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010).
Pragmatic competence is an important part of overall communicative competence;
however, the most beneficial means for achieving high level pragmatic skills is not
clearly established. A range of early studies demonstrated that grammatical awareness
often preceded pragmatic awareness and the reason for this difference in development
40
was not always apparent (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999). However, additional research suggests
that this difference in development is the result of two interacting components, (1) a lack
of immersion or experience with the L2 culture or society and (2) instruction that focuses
on linguistical forms over cultural competence (Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998; Kasper,
2001; Rose, 2005). Therefore, in order to develop pragmatic proficiency, the L2 learner
would need (1) immersion and direct experience in the L2 culture and/or (2) direct
instruction regarding sociocultural norms. Essentially, like other language skills,
meaningful input for pragmatics should be in the form of experience in society and/or
instruction in the classroom (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998;
Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012; Halenko & Jones, 2011; Hinkel, 2014; Ishihara, 2006;
Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Rose, 2005). Having both cultural immersion and direct
instruction would be ideal; however, having both is not possible for all language learners,
especially EFL learners since they are studying a foreign language in their non-Englishspeaking home environment. This dilemma makes evident why direct instruction in
pragmatics is crucial in the EFL environment—without it, an important linguistic
component is, in effect, absent from view for EFL learners.
Exposure versus Instruction
Although it is possible for an L2 learner to develop pragmatic competence over an
extended period of time through regular exposure and interaction in the L2 environment,
the realization of that learning appears to be somewhat unpredictable. A fundamental
question in the field of interlanguage pragmatics is whether L2 pragmatic norms are best
learned via real life exposure or through instruction (Rose, 2005; Taguchi, 2018). The
answer to this question appears to be that instruction for learning pragmatic norms is very
41
useful to all L2 learners whether they are learning the L2 as a second language (ESL) or a
foreign language (EFL). In the ESL environment, formal instruction in pragmatics can
enhance real life exposure for the ESL learner and improve pragmatic competence in
everyday interactions (Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012; Halenko & Jones, 2011). In the
EFL environment, formal instruction in pragmatics elucidates L2 pragmatic norms and
heightens awareness for the EFL learner which leads to a more thorough understanding
of the target language (Bu, 2012; Chang, 2010, 2011; Martinez-Flor, 2016; Rose, 2000,
2005, 2009).
If instruction assists in the development of pragmatic understanding and ability in both
the ESL and EFL environments, the question remains regarding the best type of
instruction. The two styles of instruction in pragmatics most often researched in terms of
effectiveness are implicit and explicit instruction (Taguchi, 2015).
Implicit and Explicit Instruction
Instruction in pragmatics that is implicit does not require overt discussion about the
rules and norms associated with pragmatically appropriate behavior (Glaser, 2013;
Ishihara, 2010). Implicit instruction is created by providing classroom materials with
guidance that allow learners to draw their own conclusions about pragmatic elements.
This form of pragmatics instruction is in contrast to explicit instruction which requires
explaining or metacommunicating about pragmatics and sociocultural norms and is
referred to as metapragmatic communication (Taguchi, 2015). Explicit instruction in
pragmatics entails directly explaining the pragmatic elements found in the educational
materials related to the target language (Bu, 2012; Ishihara, 2010; Rose, 2005; Taguchi,
2015). Studies suggest that in both ESL and EFL environments implicit and explicit
42
instruction in pragmatics have a constructive effect on the development of pragmatic
competence (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Taguchi, 2015). However, much of the research
suggests that explicit instruction has a more significant, longer-lasting effect than implicit
instruction (Taguchi, 2015).
In a study done in the UK by Halenko and Jones (2011), the experimental group of
Chinese ESL students who were given six hours of explicit instruction on the use of
request strategies showed considerable improvement in their pragmatic understanding on
a post-test compared to the Chinese ESL students who received no instruction. This
study demonstrates that even though both groups of learners were exposed to the English
language environment on a daily basis, instruction can make a difference and accelerate
the use of more pragmatically accurate language. Despite the immediate outcome, it
should be noted that later in the study the experimental group showed very little
improvement on the delayed test given several weeks after instruction. However, based
on a comparison of other similar studies, the researchers surmised that this was mainly an
indication that explicit instruction must be sustained over the long term in order to create
long-term understanding. Ultimately, the results of this study signify that on-going
explicit instruction in pragmatics is beneficial to learners and suggests that exposure
along with instruction can increase comprehension and ability.
In a study done in China with Chinese EFL learners (Bu, 2012), three groups were
used to determine the effects of both implicit and explicit instruction on the development
of pragmatic competence. The first group of learners received explicit instructions which
consisted of reviewing NS-NS role play samples and then given detailed metapragmatic
information on the pragmatic norms of making suggestions in English; the second group
43
of learners was given implicit instructions on making suggestions which consisted of
having them notice any differences between the NS-NS role play samples and their own
role play inventions; the third group was given no instructions—they were only allowed
to review the NS-NS role play samples and then answer a short set of comprehension
questions. Each group was given a pre- and post-test for the treatment period.
The study showed that students who received explicit instruction surpassed those who
received implicit instruction or no instruction. The learners in the first group who were
given explicit metapragmatic information demonstrated the most improvement overall on
the post-test. The learners given implicit instruction also showed noticeable
improvement even though the improvement was not as high as the explicit instruction
group. The control group of students who received no instruction in this study showed
very little improvement in pragmatic understanding from the pre-test to the post-test.
Overall, this study suggests that direct instruction is beneficial to L2 learners’ level of
pragmatic competence and explicit instruction provides more focused learning and better
results.
These studies suggest that instruction in pragmatics is advantageous for learners in
both the ESL and EFL environment, especially explicit instruction with metapragmatic
content (Bu, 2012; Halenko & Jones, 2011; Taguchi, 2015). Although it is helpful to
know that instruction in pragmatics is both valuable and necessary, it is not as easy to
know how it can be implemented in the typical classroom setting. Teaching and learning
environments may vary in their acceptance and incorporation of instructional pragmatics.
The typical language program or classroom environment may not easily accommodate a
new component like pragmatics instruction; however, the research indicates that adding
44
this component might be beneficial. In the next section I will describe common elements
in the EFL teaching and learning environment as well as some common traits of EFL
learners. I will also discuss the means for incorporating instructional pragmatics into an
EFL curriculum, and establish how that can lead to improved outcomes for
communicative competence for EFL learners in the EFL classroom.
The EFL Environment and Learner
At the start of the 21st century an estimated 1.5 billion people were users of English
and about 75 percent of them used English as a second language. It is predicted that by
the year 2020 as many as 2 billion people will be using English as a first or second
language with the vast majority of them being second language users (Pakir, 1999; The
British Council, 2013). In a large number of discourse situations, English speakers are
using English as a lingua franca (ELF) in non-English speaking contexts (Celce-Murcia,
2014; Illes & Akcan, 2017). In all probability, many of these L2 English users first
studied English as a foreign language in their home country. The characteristics of
learning a foreign language in a learner’s country of origin are dissimilar from learning a
second language within the L2 native speaking society (Gilmore, 2007; Illes & Akcan,
2017; Taguchi, 2008, 2018). This discussion focuses on learners of English who are
studying in their home countries, and examines a typical English language teaching and
learning environment in these non-English speaking countries.
Studying English as a foreign language entails learning English primarily in a
classroom setting that is not encompassed by an English language society. Often the
English teacher in the EFL setting is a NNS of English and the language program is part
of a larger non-English speaking educational context such as a middle school, high
45
school, college, or private language school (Moussu & Llurda, 2008; Rao & Yuan, 2016;
Urgilés & Villacreces, 2017). Students in an EFL setting may have the same first
language and culture. They are usually studying English as part of a larger curriculum,
not necessarily as the core curriculum, unless they are English majors at the college or
university level (Eyring, 2014; Kim, 2016; Lai, 2013; Rao & Yuan, 2016). Today, for
the majority of young EFL learners, studying English is compulsory. Many nations
around the world require young students to begin studying English as early as third grade
and continue studying until matriculation from secondary school and into college or
university (Asassfeh, Khwaileh, Al-Shaboul, & Alshboul, 2012; Eurostat, 2017; Lai,
2013; Rao & Yuan, 2016). In addition, they are often required to take high-stakes
standardized tests to evaluate their English skills (Eyring, 2014; Kim, 2014). Many adult
learners tend to be users of English for work purposes and their goal is to improve their
conversation skills at the job (Eyring, 2014; Taguchi, 2018). If the learner is an EFL
teacher in their home country, they may need to attend continuing education classes in
English as part of their teaching requirements (Moussu & Llurda, 2008). English learners
in their home countries have a variety of reasons for studying and improving their
English language skills. Many of those reasons are practical or instrumental to improving
their lives in terms of educational goals and career advancement (Chen, 2017; Eyring,
2014).
Although many students of English travel abroad to English-speaking countries in
order to improve their language skills (Taguchi, 2018; The British Council, 2013), there
are many who are unable to do that. Those who cannot afford to travel abroad must
continue their study of English within their home country where there may be a lack of
46
real life exposure to English. Still, traveling abroad, despite a great deal of exposure to
the target culture and language, is not necessarily a guarantee of language improvement,
including pragmatic competence. Studies involving English learners in the study-abroad
context show that it is not whether a learner has been living in an English-speaking
environment that determines their level of pragmatic competence or how long they have
lived in that environment. It is the amount of time learners spend interacting with others
and using English consistently that is a greater determiner of pragmatic improvement
(Taguchi, 2008, 2018). Language can be learned as long as there is interaction between
interlocutors. The amount of language acquired by the L2 learner depends not only on
the learning context, but the quantity and quality of language-related interactions.
According to Taguchi (2018), interactional competence is viewed as a “socially coconstructed phenomenon” (p. 126). The key to pragmatic competence is the level of
interaction that ELs engage in whether it is in the ESL or EFL environment. For students
who are unable to travel abroad and experience English-speaking domains first hand, it is
encouraging to know that they can still accomplish pragmatic competence within their
home culture setting by way of classroom instruction.
Because EFL students often do not have much opportunity to learn or practice English
outside of the classroom, classroom interactions, course materials, and homework
assignments must be relevant, engaging, and authentic (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor,
2003; Gilmore, 2007; Krulatz, 2014). As Taguchi states:
Hence, it seems that learners in a FL environment are not necessarily
disadvantaged in pragmatic development; pragmatic comprehension develops
naturally in domestic, formal classroom settings that afford limited opportunity
47
for input, communicative practice, and pragmatic awareness, as long as the
context affords sufficient resources for such development (2008, p. 443).
Although EFL learners lack much opportunity to interact with NS of English, it does not
mean that they cannot achieve both pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competence in
line with ESL learners and native speakers (Taguchi, 2008). By identifying speech acts
and reviewing speech act strategies and routines that are typical within the target
language community, and with the aid of materials (e.g. videos, video transcriptions, and
texts) that are realistic and compelling, the EFL classroom can become a pragmatically
rich environment (Hinkel, 2014; Taguchi, 2008). Through the learner’s personal
observations and journaling, and using cross-cultural analysis of home culture and target
culture norms, learners will be able to identify speech act norms that are common in their
L1 and compare and contrast them to L2 norms. Once students are acquainted with
speech act norms and can identify and discuss them, they can use the classroom
environment to codify their own use of speech acts and navigate the most appropriate
ways to perform speech acts in the L2 with classmates and teachers (ChavarrIa &
Bonany, 2006; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Lazaraton, 2014). Finally, creating interactions
through the use of teacher-assisted discussion, group discussion, role-plays, and pair
work that involves task-based activities, pragmatic development will begin to occur
organically in the classroom (ChavarrIa & Bonany, 2006; Duff, 2014; Illes & Akcan,
2017; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010). By creating a pragmatically rich classroom experience,
learners can become competent users of English at the pragmatic level. This knowledge
and skill will better prepare them when opportunities arise where they might need to
48
speak with other ELF users outside of the classroom (e.g. on the job, when traveling, on
social media).
Directly teaching pragmatics in the classroom, whether ESL or EFL, is an emerging
movement that developed as a result of research in interlanguage pragmatics (Ishihara &
Cohen, 2010). Creating a curriculum that is focused on integrating instructional
pragmatics with other teaching modalities is viewed as a valuable development toward
improving L2 instruction. By making pragmatic competence a necessary teaching and
learning goal aimed at refining overall communicative competence, language programs
can improve teaching practices and learning outcomes in language learning
environments. It is the intent of this curriculum development project to utilize
instructional pragmatics to improve EFL programs and build communicative competence
for students in the EFL teaching and learning environment. The benefits of an EFL
instructional pragmatics curriculum will create advantages for EFL learners inside and
outside the classroom.
Project Rationale
The intent of this capstone project is the advancement of instructional pragmatics
as a component of interlanguage pragmatic development. More specifically, the focus is
on operationalizing instructional pragmatics in an EFL teaching and learning
environment in order to enhance the pragmatic competence of adult ELs when
performing the expressive speech act of apologizing in English.
The reason for this capstone project is to develop a curriculum that will target
pragmatic competence as a teaching and learning goal in EFL classrooms. Acquiring
pragmatic skills in conjunction with linguistic forms is a necessary part of learning to be
49
a competent and fluent user of English, or any language. Creating an EFL curriculum
with lessons that focus on pragmatics related concepts, such as context and contextual
factors, politeness theories, understanding speech acts, and performing speech act
routines in culturally appropriate ways, will lead to more comprehensive and enlightening
teaching and learning experiences for both teachers and students and will contribute to
EL communicative competence overall.
Summary
In this chapter I reviewed the areas of pragmatics research that lay the foundation for
creating a curriculum based on teaching and learning pragmatics. I have defined and
explored basic theoretical components within the study of pragmatics, which are
Implicature, the Co-operative Principles and Politeness Maxims; Presupposition; Deixis;
Referencing; and most importantly for this project, Speech Act Theory. I have outlined
the basic elements of Speech Act Theory and explained the significance of indirect
speech as well as contextual factors related to speech acts. I also explained the research
on the expressive speech act of apologizing and the routines or formulae that comprise
the use of apologies in English. In addition, the topics of interlanguage and interlanguage
pragmatics were discussed in relation to the process of language acquisition and
developing pragmatic competence. The notion of pragmatic competence was broken
down and explained in terms of its two complimenting parts, which are pragmalinguistic
and sociopragmatic competence. As a component of interlanguage pragmatics, I
discussed the fairly new field of exploration called instructional pragmatics. I explained
how explicit instruction regarding speech act formulae can be used to improve the
learning experiences for L2 learners because of the emphasis on pragmatic
50
comprehension in conjunction with linguistic development. Finally, I described the
standard EFL teaching and learning environment as well as the general situation for many
EFL learners including their typical needs and motivations. I also explained how lessons
that are rich in materials and resources that provide explicit instruction in pragmatics can
be just as beneficial to L2 learners as experiencing the target language in its native
domain. This literature review illustrated how research in pragmatics defines instruction
in pragmatics and drives the curriculum for this project.
In the next chapter I will give a detailed description of the curriculum development
project including the main purpose and goal. I will explain the framework for the
curriculum and lessons and describe the methodologies that will be used for instruction. I
will describe the EFL setting for the lessons, and I will describe the audience for this
project which are intermediate to advanced level adult EFL learners. I will also give an
appraisal regarding the timeline for the curriculum with a breakdown of the individual
lessons in terms of calendar semester and class times. The next chapter will basically
detail the project and a rationale for each step of the project.
51
CHAPTER THREE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Introduction
The intent of this capstone project is the advancement of instructional pragmatics as a
component of interlanguage pragmatic development. More specifically, the focus is on
operationalizing instructional pragmatics in an EFL teaching and learning environment in
order to enhance the pragmatic competence of adult ELs when performing the expressive
speech act of apologizing in English. The following question best iterates this
undertaking: What might an instructional pragmatics curriculum for adult EFL learners
look like? This curriculum development project is designed as a speaking skills course
focused on improving interlanguage pragmatic competence when producing the
expressive speech act of apologizing in English.
In this chapter I describe the curriculum development project in more detail. I give an
overview of the project and explain the basic pedagogical framework that is used to
devise the project. I clarify the goal of the project and provide a referenced rationale for
choosing this goal. I describe the research supporting the teaching pedagogy supporting
the curriculum units. In addition, I describe the intended EFL setting for the project, the
classroom environment, and the possible societal influences outside the classroom. And I
describe the intended audience for the project, which is adult EFL learners in non-English
speaking environments such as their home country or any place where English is not the
52
native language. Finally, I present a description of the course design process and explain
how the lessons are organized and timed.
Overview of the Project
This curriculum development project was designed as a speaking skills course
consisting of several lessons for intermediate to advanced level ELs in an EFL
environment using research-based instructional techniques focused on improving
interlanguage pragmatic competence when producing the expressive speech act of
apologizing in English. This curriculum project consists of two units consisting of ten
50-minute lessons. The first unit is made up of seven lessons with the goal of improving
learners’ understanding of concepts in pragmatics, including context and contextual
factors, politeness principles, and speech acts. The second unit consists of three lessons
focused on understanding and performing the speech act of apologizing in English in a
culturally appropriate way.
The first lesson consists of an evaluation or pre-test in the form of a discourse
completion task (DCT) to determine learners’ familiarity with speech acts and how to
respond in certain speech act situations. Subsequent lessons are scaffolded to increase
learners’ awareness of concepts in pragmatics, contextual factors that affect discourse,
politeness principles, categories and types of speech acts, identifying speech acts in
scripted dialogues from TV shows and movies, recognizing apologies, comparing and
contrasting apology routines based on cultural differences, noticing apology routines in
English, analyzing apology routines and related contextual factors, reflecting on
pragmatic failures when making an apology in the L2, performing apologies in role plays,
and reflecting on how to improve speaking performance when making an apology in
53
English. In addition, an assessment was designed in the form of a role play to discover
whether learners develop both sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic competence for
making apologies in English. Finally, a post-test DCT was created to help discover
learner development in pragmatic competence as a result of the lessons. Overall, the aim
of this project was to create a curriculum with lessons that raise learners’ awareness of
pragmatics and speech acts and motivate them to want to learn more about speech act
routines and language use in context. Raising learners’ awareness assists them in making
more pragmatically appropriate language choices both inside and outside the classroom
(Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003).
Project Framework
The main goal of this project was to increase EFL learner understanding of concepts
involving pragmatics, especially the appropriate use of speech acts and speech act
routines for making apologies in English. Targeting pragmatic competence as a teaching
and learning goal has been overlooked in most EFL curriculums (Bardovi-Harlig &
Mahan-Taylor, 2003; Gilmore, 2007; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Urgilés & Villacreces,
2017). Acquiring pragmatic skills in conjunction with linguistic forms is a necessary part
of learning to be a competent and fluent user of English. By creating an EFL curriculum
that focused on pragmatic development, teaching and learning experiences are improved
and this contributes to EL communicative competence overall (Alcon Soler, 2008;
ChavarrIa & Bonany, 2006; Ifantidou & Tzanne, 2012). For current EFL programs,
including a pragmatics curriculum is beneficial as it emphasizes language use in context
and broadens the learners’ knowledge regarding English as the target language. This
broader understanding will benefit learners when they use English either in an English-
54
speaking environment or as a lingua franca (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003;
Krulatz, 2014; Neff & Rucynski Jr, 2013; Urgilés & Villacreces, 2017).
In order to build a curriculum for teaching and learning pragmatics, it was important
to focus on teaching practices that encouraged both linguistic awareness and pragmatic
understanding. The framework used for achieving this goal involved several different
teaching practices. The core methods in this project were the awareness-raising
approach, explicit instruction, cross-cultural analysis, journaling and reflection,
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and performance and task-based activities.
Evaluation and assessment instruments were also used as teaching and learning tools.
It is necessary to use more than one instructional practice when teaching a second
language, including pragmatics instruction, as each method facilitates different cognitive
functions and helps the learner acquire language concepts and linguistic forms in a way
that is relative to their normal learning style (Alcon Soler, 2008; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010;
Parrish, 2006, 2015; Taguchi, 2011). The teaching methods used to create and build the
framework for this instructional pragmatics curriculum project are explained in the next
section.
Teaching Methodologies
Awareness raising is activated in the lessons by the use of videos and video transcripts
that consist of politeness behaviors and dialogue samples with speech act content. In the
dialogue videos, with guidance from the teacher, learners view the videos and read the
transcripts in order to notice the routines and word phrases that the speakers use during
discourse. The learners also become aware of the context or situation related to the
speech act and surmise the contextual factors that influence the speech act sequences
55
(ChavarrIa & Bonany, 2006; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Kondo, 2010; Martinez-Flor &
Beltran-Palanques, 2014). There is also a video that does not have any dialogue, but
demonstrates through actions different types of behaviors and politeness norms. Both
types of videos are used for eliciting discussion about social rules and cultural norms
which are an important part of pragmatic competence (Hinkel, 2014).
For each lesson, through the use of explicit and/or deductive instruction, the teacher
illustrated the concepts of pragmatics, contextual factors, politeness principles, speech act
categories and types of speech acts, apology routines or conventional apology phrases.
One goal of the instruction was to accentuate the linguistic forms most commonly used to
perform apology routines. The teacher explained the five universal routines for making
apologies (see Chapter Two) and the conventional linguistic forms that are used in
English to enact these routines. Once learners are familiar with these concepts through
explicit instruction, they analyze examples of real or realistic apologies and deduce which
routines fit the description offered by the teacher. Explicit instruction creates more
noticing and awareness and leads students to understand speech act routines more
thoroughly (Bardovi-Harlig & Vellenga, 2012; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Martinez-Flor &
Beltran-Palanques, 2014).
For students in the EFL environment, comparing and contrasting elements of their L1
to English as their L2 might simply mean translating words and phrases from the L1 to
the L2. It may not be as common to compare and contrast the sociocultural norms
associated with each language. For learning pragmatics and speech acts, cross-cultural
analysis is incorporated into the classroom lessons by having students compare the norms
for apologizing in their home language to English speaking norms (Kondo, 2010;
56
Limberg, 2015). By finding the differences between how the two languages are used,
learners learn through association and identification. They also realize their own
subjective views about the nature of their L1 versus English so they can choose how to
respond in English based on their subjective view and identity. This approach in the EFL
classroom also encourages social relevancy and respect in regards to the students’ home
language and culture (Ishihara, 2006, 2010; LoCastro, 2013; Taguchi, 2011).
Through the use of observation and journaling, EFL learners act as sociocultural
ethnographers and record observations about speech acts, particularly making apologies,
in their L1 and English. They reflect on what they observe and draw relative conclusions
about the nature of speech act routines. And through the process of journaling they
improve their writing skills (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Krulatz, 2014).
In language teaching and learning, CLT has developed into an effective practice for
increasing L2 fluency (Savignon, 1991; Savignon & Wang, 2003). The CLT approach is
highly regarded, yet, in the traditional EFL setting it is not always accepted; however, it
is gaining more acceptance today as both teachers and learners grow more accustomed to
this more liberal teaching style (Asassfeh, Khwaileh, Al-Shaboul, & Alshboul, 2012;
Savignon & Wang, 2003). The CLT curricula consists of five components: language arts,
language for a purpose, personal language use, theatre arts, and beyond the classroom
(Savignon, 1987). The idea is to use these different components to create lessons that
promote communicative competence in the classroom and outside the classroom. A
curriculum that targets pragmatic development in an EFL setting also requires the use of
all five components. For example, language for a purpose means operationalizing
functional language and language in context; personal language use entails student-
57
teacher and student-student discussions in the classroom; and language beyond the
classroom consists of real world observations and interactions or field trips whenever
possible. It is also advantageous to use language arts and theater arts during the lessons
because by becoming familiar with literary works and theater, including storybooks,
poems, plays, films and television shows in English, learners observe language use within
meaningful contexts which will further their knowledge about English usage (Savignon,
1987, 1991). By using the CLT approach in the lessons on pragmatics, more teaching
options were utilized to make the lessons more communicative and meaningful.
Performance and task-based activities go with the CLT approach to language teaching
and learning. Activities such as role-plays, group discussions using prompts, mingle
activities that use a question/answer format, games, and problem-solving tasks such as a
transcribing and gap-fill activities are used to enhance instruction while encouraging
classroom interaction and communication in English, which means more L2 input and
output (Ellis, 2000, 2014).
Initial evaluation and final assessment are valuable teaching and learning tools in the
EFL setting as long as they are authentic, valid and reliable. According to Ishihara &
Cohen, there are four reasons for assessing pragmatics in the classroom.
1. Classroom assessment of pragmatics sends a message to the students that their
ability to be pragmatically appropriate in the comprehension and production of
language in different sociocultural situations is valued or even advantageous.
2. The very act of putting such items on a test gives the students an incentive to
study L2 pragmatics.
58
3. Assessment gives teachers an opportunity to see the relative control their students
have in what may at times be a high-stakes area for L2 performance (e.g., getting
or holding a job).
4. It gives teachers an opportunity to check on whether learners have learned what
they explicitly taught them (2010, p. 264).
In pragmatics, testing is accomplished through the use of DCTs, questionnaires, role
plays or interviews. These types of assessments are commonly used in the research on
interlanguage pragmatics and have been validated by a number of studies (Roever, 2011;
Taguchi, 2018; Youn, 2015). Using models from the research is a helpful way to assess
learners in an EFL classroom that is focused on developing pragmatic competence.
These assessment techniques were applied throughout the lessons in this project.
The instructional methods described above were employed in this pragmatics
curriculum with the intention of creating lessons that are insightful, interactive, and
meaningful to students. Hopefully, by illustrating and demonstrating concepts in
pragmatics and apology routines in English that are appropriate according to English
language norms, students will garner the importance of pragmatics in language learning,
and develop an appreciation for pragmatic competence as a factor of overall
communicative competence. Ultimately, it is the intention of this project to provide
pragmatics instruction that motivates and inspires students to become more proficient
users of English as a result of deeper-level pragmatic understanding.
In the next section I will discuss the educational setting for this instructional
pragmatics curriculum development project. The following discussion is a continuation
of the description of the EFL environment mentioned in the literature review chapter.
59
The EFL Setting for Instruction in Pragmatics
Because I am not currently teaching in an EFL setting, I rely on my past experience as
an EFL teacher in South Korea and China to describe the setting. Based on my
experience, the EFL setting for this curriculum development project is best taught starting
at the intermediate level with teenaged or adult students who are in high school or more
advanced studies. For example, the setting could be a three year high school, a two year
technical college, a four year university, or a supplementary language center for teen and
adult learners. The lessons would be taught in a classroom that accommodates no more
than 30 students. The classroom would have up-to-date audio-visual equipment and
internet access capable of projecting videos on an overhead system. The room would
have a blackboard or whiteboard to be used for writing out instructions, illustrating
examples, showing diagrams, and so on. The blackboard/whiteboard could also be used
by the students when giving demonstrations, presentations, or sharing answers to
questions and prompts. Ideally, the classroom desks or tables would be arranged in
groupings so as to promote the formation of pairs or small student groups in order to
encourage interaction between students. The teacher’s desk would be near the back of
the classroom or off to the side with the student desks or tables situated toward the front
of the room with easy access to the blackboard, AV equipment, or podium. The
classroom for this setting would be conducive to presentation work and interaction
among students and with the teacher.
The teaching and learning program that this curriculum supports could be any number
of programs. For example, it could be an international high school with English as the
main language, an EFL program within a college or university campus, a translation or
60
interpretation study program at a university, an English language training center geared
toward working adults, or an EFL teacher professional development program. Whatever
the actual English language program or physical setting, ideally, the units and lessons
would be focused on pragmatics and speech acts and be part of a semester long speaking
skills course. It is also possible for the course to be a content-based course that includes
some lessons in pragmatics. Whether it is an entire semester long course in pragmatics or
a content-based course with some lessons focused on pragmatics, the purpose would be to
introduce a number of speech acts and illustrate standard speech act routines, while
relating them to the contextual factors that influence speech acts and meaning. In the
name of expedience, for this project the focus is on general pragmatic concepts and the
speech act of apologizing, although the semester long course would involve teaching and
learning many different speech acts.
An EFL setting for teaching and learning English comprises multiple scenarios and
each one can function differently based on the region, country, city, or campus where the
instructional pragmatics course is being taught. It is my experience that the possible
setting I described above would be conducive to teaching and learning pragmatics and
speech acts to EFL learners in a semester long course.
Along with the setting it is important to consider the audience for this curriculum.
Next, I will describe the typical EFL student who may be interested in taking a course in
pragmatics in order to learn speech acts and improve pragmatic understanding in English.
The EFL Learner as Audience for Instruction in Pragmatics
Over the course of six years of teaching English in South Korea and China, I was
fortunate to experience teaching a variety of students in several different settings. My
61
first job was teaching young children between the ages of five and 16 in an after-school
program in a small city on the east coast of South Korea. My lack of teaching experience
left me unprepared for these lively and adorable youngsters; however, it was a great
introduction into the world of EFL teaching and learning. Because of extenuating
circumstances related to the management of the school, I moved from that position to a
“visiting instructor” position at a relatively small, private university north of Seoul. The
students were almost all first year college students who were majoring in a variety of
subjects. The single course that I taught for 15-20 hours a week was basic English
conversation for students of any major. It was a compulsory course for all students in
their first year at the school. Most of the learners were low to intermediate level speakers
of English, although many of them were “false beginners,” meaning they could read in
English better than they could speak, listen, or write. After teaching at the school for two
years, I found that there were many false beginners in my classes. And, after teaching in
China for three and half years, I noticed the same phenomenon happening with my
students there. It seemed that students were fairly comfortable reading, or even listening,
in English, but lacked experience with the productive skills of speaking and writing.
Through readings and conversations with colleagues I learned that this phenomenon did
not go unnoticed by language researchers and policy makers in both countries, and that
was often the reason for bringing NSs of English into their English language programs.
The intended goal for including NSs of English into the school setting was to assist
students in gaining more first-hand experience with fluent speakers and begin regular
usage of English. This background story illustrates a common scenario in teaching and
learning English as a foreign language. Many students of English in non-English
62
speaking countries who are literate in their first language often have access to reading and
listening materials in English, but do not have interactional experience. Consequently,
they have a difficult time developing their productive skills. It is with these difficulties in
mind that this curriculum development project is drawn up.
Based on my experience and observations, the students most likely to take a course in
pragmatics and speech acts would be intermediate to advanced level speakers of English
as a foreign language who are studying English in a traditional school setting such as a
college or university. Another possibility would be an international high school program
for local EFL students. This course might also be desired amongst working adults
learning English in a supplemental language program with classes held in the evenings or
on weekends. English teachers who are NNS of English might also find a course in
pragmatics and speech acts useful as part of their ongoing teacher development plan.
The most probable group of students would be literate in their L1 and will have been
studying English as a foreign language for more than a few years. These students would
have a good grasp of linguistic concepts such as grammar (e.g. verbs, nouns, adjectives,
etc.) and sentence structure (subject-verb-object), and an intermediate or higher level
vocabulary range. Students at this level would be able to understand explicit instructions
concerning pragmatics and speech act routines as well as contextual factors effecting
discourse. They would also be able to discuss cross-cultural considerations when
examining speech acts in their L1 and English. Students in this type of pragmatics course
would be motivated to improve their productive skills in English, particularly their
speaking skills. Hence, the selling point of the course for these students would be its
emphasis on understanding language in context and speech act routines as a way of
63
improving speaking and interaction in English. For this curriculum development project,
the ideal student would be an experienced learner of English who is motivated to further
develop their speaking skills, and is open to discussing and examining language and its
relationship to context and culture.
Now that the setting and typical EFL learner has been discussed, it is time to look at a
brief description of the project design and the timeframe needed to teach this curriculum.
Project Description, Course Design, and Timeline for Units/Lessons
This curriculum project is comprised of two units within a larger semester long course
(see Appendix B for sample of course syllabus). Each unit consists of a series of 50minute lessons taught three times per week over the course of approximately three to four
weeks (e.g. 9:00-9:50 am, Monday-Wednesday-Friday). The content of the first unit
focuses on general concepts related to pragmatics such as the definition of pragmatics,
contextual factors related to discourse situations, politeness principles, and categories and
types of speech acts. The second unit is focuses on the speech act of apologizing and the
routines and conventions associated with apologizing in English. Both units focus on the
use of language as it relates to pragmatics, speech acts, and contextualized discourse
situations.
The course development process for designing these units on pragmatics and the
speech act of apologizing consisted of six interrelated and interchangeable phases
(Graves, 2000).
1. The first phase was to evaluate the students’ skill levels and determine their
familiarity with pragmatics and speech acts in English; however, because this
project will not have actual student participants, the students’ levels were based
64
on the description provided above in the previous section of this chapter.
Normally, with actual participants, the initial evaluation is done through the use of
a DCT and/or questionnaire at the outset of the course. The purpose of this phase
is to help the teacher better prepare the lessons and keep the materials accessible
according to the students’ current skill levels. This phase of the process will also
help access student prior knowledge and schema by asking them to think about
what they currently know and understand about pragmatics, contextual factors,
speech acts, and apologies.
2. The second phase in this curriculum design process was to formulate the main
goals of the entire curriculum, along with the goals for each unit and the
objectives for each lesson. The unit and lesson goals reflect the main curriculum
goals. The main goals for the overall curriculum are that students will understand
the concept of pragmatics and will reflect on how pragmatic competence is an
important aspect of second language learning; students will understand the
concepts of speech acts and speech act routines; students will identify and analyze
contextual factors that affect word meaning and influence speech acts; students
will be able to identify and perform speech act routines in ways that are viewed as
socially and culturally appropriate based on discourse situations and related
context.
3. The third phase in this process was conceptualizing content as per each lesson.
During this phase the lessons were planned and laid out. The necessary content
for each lesson was established according to complexity and the need to scaffold
the learning. For the first unit, it was established that the content would be
65
concepts in pragmatics, including contextual factors affecting discourse situations,
politeness principles, and categorizing examples of different types of speech acts.
The second unit focuses on the speech act of apologizing, including strategies,
routines, and conventional phrases. The activities and student tasks were
formulated based on the content, goals and objectives, and the need to scaffold the
learning according to complexity and new material.
4. The fourth phase was to develop the materials needed to enhance each lesson.
The materials were based on the activities and student tasks that were
operationalized for each lesson. The intent of the materials was to support the
activities and tasks while meeting the objectives of each lesson.
5. The fifth phase was to organize the units and lessons so as to scaffold the learning
by introducing the easier concepts and materials first, followed by the more
complex and difficult modules later in each unit.
6. The sixth phase of the curriculum design process was designing an assessment
plan that would be valid and reliable and based on the content and materials that
were provided to the students during the lessons. Assessment allows the teacher
to discern how much actual learning and comprehension is taking place in the
classroom and which students might be in need of more assistance. Assessments
occurred throughout each unit and were in multiple forms, including a final
assessment, or post-test, at the end of the course. As in the beginning of the
course, the post-test was added to evaluate student development in terms of
understanding pragmatic speech acts routines in English. This assessment was in
the form of a DCT and was exactly the same as the pre-test. By using the same
66
test, the teacher gauges how much change or improvement in understanding
happens for each student. In addition, at the end of the unit on apologizing, there
is a role play activity used to assess the students understanding and use of apology
routines. A rubric was created for the purpose of evaluating the role plays. The
language competencies that were evaluated and listed on the rubric were Fluency,
Accuracy, and Appropriateness.
The six phases for creating these units on pragmatics and speech acts and making
apologies was intended to be flexible and holistic and did not have to be linear. This
means that each phase was returned to and reexamined as necessary according to student
needs and time constraints (Graves, 2000).
For this unit, there was a lesson design template (see Appendix A) that was utilized
for each lesson and included the main learning goals and what the students were expected
to understand. The template also outlined the lesson objectives that could reasonably be
achieved in each lesson and related to the main unit goal. It also included the lesson
content and prompts for promoting student thinking about the content. There was also a
description of the assessments during each lesson in the form of exams, tasks, or
questionnaires. It also included space for teacher evaluations of student comprehension
by way of observation and class notes. Finally, the design template listed the learning
activities and student tasks along with the estimated time it would take to accomplish
each activity or task. The lesson design template was designed as the basis for creating,
setting up, and implementing the lessons for these units. In tune with the course design
process, the lesson template was structured, yet, adjustable according to changes in
student needs and any time constraints.
67
Summary
In this chapter I described the project in more detail by describing its basic
pedagogical framework and the teaching methods that were utilized in each curriculum
unit. I described the EFL setting as I experienced it working as an EFL teacher and
related it to the setting intended for this curriculum. I also defined and described the
typical EFL student that I feel would be the most likely to take a course in pragmatics and
speech acts. I also gave a description of what the pragmatics course and units were like,
as well as a description of the course design process and the lesson design template that
was used to structure and create the lessons for the unit. The timeline needed for
teaching the curriculum units on pragmatics, speech acts, and apologies was also
described. In this chapter, in response to my original topic question, I have elucidated
what a curriculum unit in instructional pragmatics for teaching and learning the speech
act of apologizing in English would look like in an EFL environment.
In the next chapter, I will reflect critically about the process of creating this
curriculum development project intended to enhance awareness about pragmatics and
speech acts in the EFL setting. I will discuss possible implications for developing similar
curriculums for EFL teaching and learning. I will also discuss the literature that was the
most valuable toward creating this project. Finally, I will discuss some of the limitations
of this project and how future projects can be improved.
68
CHAPTER FOUR
CRITICAL REFLECTION
Introduction
The intent of this capstone project is the advancement of instructional pragmatics as a
component of interlanguage pragmatic development. More specifically, the focus is on
operationalizing instructional pragmatics in an EFL teaching and learning environment in
order to enhance the pragmatic competence of adult ELs when performing the expressive
speech act of apologizing in English. The following question best iterates this
undertaking: What might an instructional pragmatics curriculum for adult EFL learners
look like? This curriculum development project was designed as a speaking skills course
consisting of several lessons for intermediate to advanced level ELs in an EFL
environment using research-based instructional techniques focused on improving
interlanguage pragmatic competence when producing the expressive speech act of
apologizing in English.
In this chapter I will reflect on what I have learned as a researcher, writer, and teacher,
and learner in the process of creating this capstone project intended to advance
instructional pragmatics for EFL teaching and learning programs. I will also discuss the
literature that had the most impact on my work and was the most useful in designing my
project. I will then discuss possible implications for this work, including any policy
implications in applying this project to EFL programs. In addition, I will examine the
limitations of this project. I will also consider any similar future projects that would be
69
worthwhile pursuing in the area of instructional pragmatics and EFL, and I will offer
some recommendations for creating related projects. And I will consider possible ways
of communicating about this project to stakeholders who might be interested in this type
of project such as EFL program administrators and other EFL teachers. Finally, I will
explain how this project is a benefit to English language teaching in English learners.
What I Have Learned
The first thing that I learned as a result of researching this topic and creating this
project is the cumulative research that is available but not sufficiently utilized in English
language programs, textbooks, and curriculums, and lessons. Research in pragmatics,
interlanguage pragmatics, and instructional pragmatics has been ongoing for over
decades and the results of the studies show that it is possible and beneficial to teach
pragmatics, explicitly or implicitly, in much the same way that we teach grammar,
vocabulary and pronunciation. However, the movement to implement pragmatics lessons
in the classroom is happening at a snail’s pace or not at all. From a research perspective
the concepts of pragmatics and speech acts is very well known; however, from a strictly
teaching and learning perspective, there is very little implementation of the methods
recommended by the research. As an EFL teacher researcher, the opportunity to
implement pragmatics in the classroom is open and inviting; however, it would require
finding a program that would be willing to allow integrating pragmatics into the
curriculum or syllabus already in place.
Through the creation of this capstone project, I have also learned that creating a core
curriculum around pragmatics concepts and speech acts is a doable endeavor and that it
could be expanded and operationalized in many different contexts such as colleges,
70
universities, private language programs, even EFL high school programs. By devising
units and lessons on pragmatics and speech acts, I could see from the outcome of this
project that the endeavor is realistic in scope and does not necessitate any hard to acquire
or manage teaching materials. The materials needed fall in line with normal teaching
materials but with a slightly less than usual approach to using them. From this vantage
point, I think this approach to teaching English would be refreshing and interesting for
any intermediate to advanced EL in any English language learning environment.
As far as my more personal learning experience during this process, I have learned
that I can be a curriculum developer and that developing a curriculum that is
comprehensive and research-based is worth the effort and time preparing. I feel this
process of creating a curriculum development project that aligns with my beliefs as a
teacher has helped me become more confident as a designer of curriculums in general. I
used to think that curriculum design and lesson preparation were “not my forte;”
however, creating this project has helped me build confidence in my ability to be an
effective and thoughtful developer and planner.
Also, during this process, I have come to appreciate more my abilities as a writer.
Although the writing process felt very demanding at times, I also feel it is a struggle that
is worth the effort and has valuable implications for my future endeavors as a researcher,
teacher, and person with ideas and interests. I feel more confident to use the writing
skills I have developed and apply them to other projects that might be fitting in terms of
career and personal growth.
71
Finally, through this process of research and development in language teaching and
learning, I have learned that I have something to contribute to the field and that my
contributions are worthwhile and could be utilized in my next phase as an EFL teacher.
The Literature Review
For this project I did considerable reading about pragmatics and contextual factors that
affect discourse; speech acts and how speech acts are categorized, analyzed, and
compared across languages; interlanguage pragmatics and how pragmatic competence is
acquired; and instructional pragmatics and what that entails when teaching and learning
English as a second or foreign language. All of the literature that I covered was useful in
that it created a well-rounded point of view for my understanding, writing, and project
development.
In order to learn about concepts in pragmatics and especially speech acts, there were
many authors and resources that I came to rely on for useful and well-developed
information (for example Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984; Brown &
Levinson, 1987; CARLA, 2018; Cutting, 2008; Grice, 1969; Hinkel, 1996; Huang, 2014;
Kasper, 2001; Kondo, 2010; LoCastro, 2013; Rose, 2005; Searle, 1976; Spencer-Oatey &
Jiang, 2003; Taguchi, 2018; Takahashi, 2010). These resources established for me the
basis for my understanding of how pragmatic competence is acquired, how it is viewed
according to language and culture, and why it should be taught in EFL programs.
The most useful research for the process of creating my curriculum and lessons was
the information on instructional pragmatics and explicitly teaching speech acts. The
resource that I found most useful for this was the book by Ishihara & Cohen (2010) that
laid out detailed explanations and examples of how lessons in pragmatics could be
72
implemented. The research information in this particular book was neatly
compartmentalized and was easy to use as a reference guide during my curriculum
development process. The authors also discussed how teacher knowledge, beliefs, and
practice, as well as student subjectivity can sometimes negatively impact the teaching and
learning of pragmatics and suggested ways that these obstacles can be dealt with.
Although I was not able to apply all that I learned about instruction for pragmatics from
this book and other similar resources (for example Alcon Soler, 2008; Asassfeh,
Khwaileh, Al-Shaboul, & Alshboul, 2012; Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003;
Hinkel, 2014; Krulatz, 2014; Limberg, 2015; LoCastro, 2013; Martinez-Flor & BeltranPalanques, 2014; Martinez-Flor, 2016; Roever, 2011; Taguchi, 2015; Takahashi, 2010)
into the design of my curriculum, there were many useful ideas, tools, and suggestions
that helped me through the curriculum development process.
The research materials that I studied regarding task-based learning and communicative
language teaching were also very useful in helping me design my curriculum project
because they provided an array of options to choose from in order to accommodate the
skill level of the learners (for example Celce-Murcia, 2014; ChavarrIa & Bonany, 2006;
Duff, 2014; Ellis, 2000, 2014; Gilmore, 2007; Hinkel, 2006; Lazaraton, 2014; Neff &
Rucynski Jr, 2013; Parrish, 2006). By combining pragmatics research and instructional
pragmatics approaches with task-based learning and CLT, I was able to create a
curriculum that can be more easily applied to programs that are already using task-based
learning and CLT in their curriculums.
Learning about pragmatics and how to teach it to English learners was an adventure in
finding research, resources, and materials. The resources and materials I encountered
73
were expansive, yet, focused while being novel, yet, reliable and predictable. The major
studies that I relied on were insightful and added something new to my learning as well
as my teaching repertoire. All of the resources and materials that I encountered
contributed something useful to my understanding of EL teaching and learning of
pragmatics and speech acts.
Implications for Research and Project
The biggest implication for this curriculum development project that involves teaching
and learning pragmatics and speech acts is that it requires expanding traditional EFL
curriculums to include a level of linguistics that is not ordinarily taught in an explicit way
in EFL classrooms. This involves adjusting curriculums that usually focus on
pronunciation (phonology and phonetics), vocabulary (morphology and semantics), and
grammar (syntax) to include more detailed instruction about language use in context
(pragmatics). In order for regular EFL programs to allow pragmatics instruction, it might
mean a change in policy regarding what standard EFL instruction looks like. It is my
hope that EFL program administrators around the world take a deeper look at pragmatics
as an instructional topic. I think that they will find that it is a level of language
competence that is just as important as the other well-established competencies which
will motivate them to design, implement, and utilize new curriculums. With just a slight
increase in insight and awareness, program administrators will see how pragmatic
competence is also a necessity that requires focus in the classroom. I believe as more
efforts to introduce pragmatics into EFL language programs persist, it will become a
more mainstream approach and instruction in pragmatics will develop and improve as its
use is increased.
74
Limitations of this Curriculum Project
I think the first limitation of this curriculum project focused on pragmatics and speech
acts for EFL learners is that it is geared toward adult intermediate to advanced level
learners. Based on the explicit instructions regarding pragmatics and speech acts that I
created as part of the lessons for this project, I feel it would best be taught to more
advanced learners and not early learners or beginning level learners. I think it would be
valuable to teach pragmatics to young learners and beginning learners; however, it would
mean taking a different approach in terms of how the teacher instruction time would be
implemented. Personally, I am not as familiar with teaching young and beginning level
English learners, but I believe assuredly that someone with that experience could devise
an instructional pragmatics curriculum that would benefit them. I think part of the
solution to this limitation would be to offer the current instructional pragmatics
curriculum as a teacher development course to experienced EFL English teachers who
work with young and beginning level learners. A teacher development course with a
focus on pragmatics instruction will help them create a curriculum for their students that
would be age and level appropriate. Since my project is geared toward intermediate to
advanced level learners, offering this course to EFL teachers of English as a development
plan would help bring this subject matter and approach to more learners by virtue of
exposing more teacher learners to the concepts of pragmatics, especially contextual
factors, politeness principles, and speech act routines. This exposure would narrow the
limitations of this type of curriculum project and broaden the audience.
Another limitation of this curriculum project is that it is geared toward the EFL
environment only. Although it could be adjusted to fit an ESL teaching and learning
75
environment, it would be necessary to fit it according to individual ESL programs and the
learners in those programs. The general learning environment for ESL has different
needs and students usually have different goals and motivations compared to EFL
learners. I believe presenting a curriculum that is focused on pragmatics and speech acts
would be beneficial for all ESL learners; however, the approach would have to be attuned
to meet their needs, preferences, and interests.
The limitations of this project are related to learner skill levels and program needs;
however, as in any teaching and learning situation, curriculums with specific content and
approaches that are useful for acquiring English can be adjusted to adequately fit all
learners needs and all program environments. I think this curriculum project could also
be fairly easily adjusted for different learners and programs.
Future Projects and Recommendations
In the future I envision similar curriculums that endeavor to advance instructional
pragmatics in order to advance learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development. Similar
future projects would include more examples of types of speech acts, demonstrate more
speech act routines, offer comprehensive examples of conventional phrases for speech act
performance, and show additional examples of realistic speech act situations, including
corpus-based real-life examples from English language corpus data. Future projects
could also focus on improving evaluation and assessment tools for rating pragmatic
knowledge and competence. It is my recommendation that instructional pragmatics
curriculums in the future rely on ongoing and up-to-date research in pragmatics concepts
such as implicature and indirect speech, sociocultural norms and contextual factors,
politeness principles, speech act routines, and conventional phrases used to perform
76
speech acts. Relying on research in these areas will be beneficial to creating wellrounded curriculums and lessons for instructional pragmatics.
In order to increase the number of instructional pragmatics curriculums in language
learning environments, it is necessary to reach out to the people who have the largest
stake in improving English language teaching and learning programs. These people
would be program administrators, language teachers, and language learners. One way of
communicating the idea of teaching pragmatics as a core concept in language learning
would be to publish articles related to the topic. However, that might not reach the
biggest audience since peer-reviewed articles are read mainly by other researchers. In
order to reach more administrators, teachers, and students, it might be necessary for
current teachers to develop understanding about pragmatics through ongoing training.
These teachers can then introduce pragmatics concepts gradually into their lessons. This
approach will help “test the waters” and provide insight into how well instruction in
pragmatics fits into standard language programs as they exist today. In order to get
teachers to attend training sessions on instructional pragmatics, it might be necessary to
submit proposals to TESOL related organizations and, hopefully, create the opportunity
to train teachers on approaches to teaching pragmatics. Becoming a teacher trainer in
instructional pragmatics is one option for advancing this topic and helping it become
more mainstream. Communicating about instructional pragmatics and encouraging the
use of this approach through writings and trainings may lead language teachers to having
a greater appreciation of pragmatic competence as a core language skill. Hopefully,
communicating this need will lead to more programs that incorporate pragmatics into
their curriculum.
77
Benefits to English Language Learning
The current project benefits the field of English language teaching and learning
because it introduces learners to new ways of thinking about discourse and the factors
that influence everyday discourse in their L2. This type of curriculum exposes ELs to
new ideas about why conversations in English can be so demanding or confusing. They
will learn that it is not just their linguistic ability, or inability, that determines their
overall competence. They will realize that there are other levels of language that are at
play when they are interacting with others and using English as their second or other
language. Language use in context, contextual factors that affect meaning, social rules
and cultural norms, politeness principles, speech act categories and types of speech acts,
and conventional speech act routines are all areas of understanding that, when
implemented in an appropriate, student-oriented way, can assist language learners in
developing the knowledge and awareness they need to further their language
development. Instructional pragmatics and the approaches it endorses can assist students
in acquiring language skills beyond literal word meaning and sentence structure.
Instructional pragmatics gives them a framework for studying some of the more complex
attributes of language and leads them to acquire language in a more comprehensive and
comprehensible way.
Summary
In this chapter I discussed what I learned as a researcher, writer, teacher and learner. I
took another look at the literature that I researched in order to develop this capstone
project and mentioned the resources that had the biggest impact on the process of
completing this project. I also explained the implications that this curriculum project has
78
on EFL programs and how it would mean expanding those programs to include
instructional pragmatics lessons. I also discussed the limitations of this curriculum
development project and how these limitations can be corrected. I also looked at how
future projects could be expanded and developed in order to increase knowledge about
pragmatics and instructional pragmatics approaches. I also included some ideas on how
this type of project could be promoted within the field of English language teaching and
learning. Finally, I explained how this curriculum development project for advancing
instructional pragmatics benefits teaching and learning English.
Through this entire process of researching, reading, writing, planning, and creating, I
have come to appreciate the areas of study that I chose to focus on which are pragmatics
in general and teaching by way of instructional pragmatics. I have also realized that by
focusing on a topic that is meaningful to me and beneficial to others, I am doing my small
part to improve the field of English language teaching and learning. This realization
encourages me to expand on what I have learned and continue to improve myself as a
researcher, writer, and teacher. It is my goal to implement the knowledge and experience
that I have acquired throughout this process in my future classrooms in a way that is
useful, meaningful, productive, enlightening, and inspiring for my students.
79
REFERENCES
Alcon Soler, E. (2008). Investigating pragmatic language learning in foreign language
classrooms. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 46(3), 173-195.
Asassfeh, S. M., Khwaileh, F. M., Al-Shaboul, Y. M., & Alshboul, S. S. (2012).
Communicative language teaching in an EFL context: Learners' attitudes and
perceived implementation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 525535.
Aubrecht, K. M. (2013). Helping English learners make pragmatically appropriate
requests. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all/521/
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2014). Documenting interlanguage development. In Z. Han, & E.
Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 127-146). Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Exploring the interlanguage of interlanguage pragmatics: A
research agenda for acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning, 49(4), 677-713.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in
pragmatics? In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
80
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dornyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic
violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2
learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-262.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the
ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401-415.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington DC:
US Department of State Office of English Language Programs.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional
expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40(1), 77-89.
Bergmann, A., Currie Hall, K., & Ross, S. M. (Eds.). (2007). Language files (Tenth ed.).
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of
speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bu, J. (2012). A study of the effects of explicit and implicit teachings on developing
Chinese EFL learners' pragmatic competence. International Journal of Language
Studies, 6(3), 57-80.
CARLA - The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. (2018).
Pragmatics and speech acts. Retrieved from
http://carla.umn.edu/speechacts/index.html
81
Celce-Murcia, M. (2014). Teaching English in the context of world Englishes. In M.
Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or
foreign language. (Fourth ed., pp. 63-70). Boston, MA: National Geographic
Learning, a part of Cengage Learning.
Chang, Y. (2010). 'I no say you say is boring': The development of pragmatic competence
in L2 apology. Language Sciences, 32(3), 408-424.
Chang, Y. (2011). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The relation between
pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence. Language
Sciences, 33(5), 786-798.
ChavarrIa, M. I., & Bonany, E. B. (2006). Raising awareness of pragmatics in the EFL
classroom: A proposal. Cultura, Lenguaje Y Representacion: Revista De Estudios
Culturales De La Universitat Jaume I, 3, 133-144.
Chen, X. (2017). An investigation of the relationship between pragmatic competence and
motivation for non-English majors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(12),
1308-1314.
Cheng, D. (2017). Communication is a two-way street: Instructors’ perceptions of student
apologies. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics
Association, 27(1), 1-32.
Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. S. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: What
remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 1986(62), 51-74.
82
Cutting, J. (2008). Pragmatics and discourse (Second ed.). London: Routledge.
Duff, P. A. (2014). Communicative language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M.
Brinton & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language (Fourth ed., pp. 15-30). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning, a part
of Cengage Learning.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research, 4(3), 193-220.
Ellis, R. (2014). Principles of instructed second language learning. In M. Celce-Murcia,
D. M. Brinton & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language (Fourth ed., pp. 31-45). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning, a part
of Cengage Learning.
Eurostat. (2017). Foreign language learning statistics. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Foreign_language_learning_statistics
Eyring, J. L. (2014). Adult learners in English as a second/foreign language settings. In
M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a
second or foreign language (Fourth ed., pp. 568-583). Boston, MA: National
Geographic Learning, a part of Cengage Learning.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language
learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97-118.
83
Glaser, K. (2013). The neglected combination: A case for explicit-inductive instruction in
teaching pragmatics in ESL. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 30(7),
150-163.
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston, MA:
Heinle Cengage Learning.
Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer's meaning and intention. The Philosophical Review, 78(2),
147-177.
Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to
Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective? System, 39(2),
240-250.
Hinkel, E. (1994). Pragmatics of interaction: Expressing thanks in a second
language. Applied Language Learning, 5(1), 73-91.
Hinkel, E. (1996). When in Rome: Evaluations of L2 pragmalinguistic behaviors. Journal
of Pragmatics, 26(1), 51-70.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 109-131.
Hinkel, E. (2014). Culture and pragmatics in language teaching and learning. In M.
Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or
foreign language. (Fourth ed., pp. 394-408). Boston, MA: National Geographic
Learning, a part of Cengage Learning.
84
Holtgraves, T. (2007). Second language learners and speech act
comprehension. Language Learning, 57(4), 595-610.
Huang, Y. (2014). Pragmatics (Second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ifantidou, E., & Tzanne, A. (2012). Levels of pragmatic competence in an EFL academic
context: A tool for assessment. Intercultural Pragmatics, 9(1), 47-70.
Illes, E., & Akcan, S. (2017). Bringing real-life language use into EFL classrooms. ELT
Journal, 71(1), 3-12.
Intachakra, S. (2004). Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching: Apologies and
thanks in English and Thai. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and
Research in Southeast Asia, 35(1), 37-62.
Ishihara, N. (2006). Subjectivity, second/foreign language pragmatic use, and
instruction: Evidence of accommodation and resistance. study I. emulating and
resisting pragmatic norms: Learner subjectivity and foreign language pragmatic
use. study II. centering second language (SL) speakers' experience: A study of SL
speakers' resistance to pragmatic norms of the SL community. study III. web-based
curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit
awareness-raising approach Available from Linguistics and Language Behavior
Abstracts (LLBA). (85644908; 200706328).
Ishihara, N. (2010). Instructional pragmatics: Bridging teaching, research, and teacher
education. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 938-953.
85
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language
and culture meet. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied
Linguistics, 22(4), 502-530.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage
pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 149-169.
Kim, H. (2016). An investigation into EFL learners' perception towards L2 pragmatic
instruction. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(3), 452-462.
Kondo, S. (2010). Apologies: Raising learners’ cross-cultural awareness. In Alicia
Martínez Flor, Esther Usó Juan (Ed.), Speech act performance: Theoretical,
empirical and methodological issues (pp. 145-162). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Krulatz, A. (2014). Integrating pragmatics instruction in a content-based
classroom. ORTESOL Journal, 31, 19-25.
Lai, H. T. (2013). Learning English as an international language: EFL learners'
perceptions of cultural knowledge acquisition in the English classroom. Asian Social
Science, 10(1), 1-11.
Lazaraton, A. (2014). Second language speaking. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton &
M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (Fourth ed.,
pp. 106-120). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning, a part of Cengage
Learning.
86
Limberg, H. (2015). Principles for pragmatics teaching: Apologies in the EFL
classroom. ELT Journal: English Language Teaching Journal, 69(3), 275-285.
LoCastro, V. (2013). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Martinez-Flor, A. (2016). Teaching apology formulas at the discourse level: Are
instructional effects maintained over time? Elia, (16), 13-48.
Martinez-Flor, A., & Beltran-Palanques, V. (2014). The role of politeness in apology
sequences: How to maintain harmony between speakers. Elia, (14), 43-66.
Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language
teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41(3), 315-348.
Neff, P., & Rucynski Jr, J. (2013). Tasks for integrating language and culture teaching.
Paper presented at the English Teaching Forum, Washington, DC. , 51(2) 12-23.
Padilla Cruz, M. (2013). Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure in intercultural
communication: From focus on speakers to focus on hearers. International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 51(1), 23-54.
Pakir, A. (1999). Connecting with English in the context of internationalisation. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(1), 103-114.
Parrish, B. (2006). Teaching adult ESL: A practical introduction. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill ESL/ELT.
87
Parrish, B. (2015). Meeting the language needs of today’s adult English language
learner: Issue brief. Washington, DC: Literacy Information and Communication
System (LINCS).
Rao, Z., & Yuan, H. (2016). Employing native-English-speaking teachers in China:
Benefits, problems and solutions. English Today, 32(4), 12-18.
Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language
Testing, 28(4), 463-481.
Ronan, P. (2015). Categorizing expressive speech acts in the pragmatically annotated
SPICE Ireland corpus. ICAME Journal, 39(1), 25.
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic
development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27-67.
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language
pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399.
Rose, K. R. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development in Hong Kong, phase
2. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2345-2364.
Savignon, S. J. (1987). Communicative language teaching. Theory into Practice, 26(4),
235-242.
Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(2), 261-278.
88
Savignon, S. J., & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative language teaching in EFL contexts:
Learner attitudes and perceptions. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics
in Language Teaching, 41(3), 223-249.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 123.
Shahrokhi, M., & Shirani Bidabadi, F. (2013). An overview of politeness theories:
Current status, future orientations. American Journal of Linguistics, 2(2), 17-27.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Jiang, W. (2003). Explaining cross-cultural pragmatic findings:
Moving from politeness maxims to sociopragmatic interactional principles
(SIPs). Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10-11), 1633-1650.
Taguchi, N. (2008). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic
comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 423-452.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were,
are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-50.
Taguchi, N. (2018). Contexts and pragmatics learning: Problems and opportunities of the
study abroad research. Language Teaching, 51(1), 124-137.
Takahashi, S. (2010). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In
Alicia Martínez-Flor, & Esther Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance:
89
Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 126-142).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Tarone, E. (2014). Enduring questions from the interlanguage hypothesis. In Z. Han, & E.
Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 7-26). Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
The British Council. (2013). The English Effect: The impact of English, what it’s worth to
the UK, and why it matters to the world. Cambridge, UK: The British Council.
Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/english-effectreport-v2.pdf
Urgilés, G. E. H., & Villacreces, J. J. (2017). English pragmatics in Ecuador. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 7(9), 723-728.
Valipour, S., & Jadidi, S. (2015). Study of Iranian English language teachers' familiarity
with language functions in request, apology, refusal, and greeting. International
Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(1), 13-30.
Vellenga, H. E. (2008). Instructional effectiveness and interlanguage
pragmatics Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (275902800).
Wyatt, M. (2014). Saying sorry in advance for not turning up: A study of EFL teachers'
text messages. English Today: The International Review of the English
Language, 30(1), 48-54.
90
Yan, L., & Zhuang, Y. (2010). Reflections on the nature of pragmatic failure. US-China
Foreign Language, 8(1), 1-7. Youn, S. J. (2015). Validity argument for assessing L2
pragmatics in interaction using mixed methods. Language Testing, 32(2), 199-225.
Yu, M. (1999). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the
acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics Quarterly
Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 9(2), 281-312.
91
APPENDIX A
Sample of lesson design template
Course Title: Understanding Pragmatics and Speech Acts in English
Unit Goals:
Lesson Objectives:
Lesson Content:
Activities/Tasks:
Assessment:
Teacher observations/notes:
92
APPENDIX B
Course Syllabus
Course Number: English 111
Course Title: Pragmatics and Speech Acts in English
Course Dates: September 3-December 21, 2018
Course Time: Monday-Wednesday-Friday, 9:00-9:50 am
Instructor: Bridget Borer
Phone: 0123-4567-8999
Email: borer@EFLuniversity.edu
Office: English Studies Building, Room 222
Office Hours: Monday, Wednesday, Friday, 13:00-14:00
Course Description: Pragmatics is the study of language use in context. The context is
the place, the time, the situation, and the people who are using the language. Becoming a
fluent speaker of English as a foreign language requires knowing how to use language
forms (words, phrases, sentences) as well as understanding the social and cultural norms
of English-speaking countries (the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia).
Speech acts are expressions (spoken or written) that are related to an action or behavior.
There are many different types of speech acts. For example, saying Hello to someone is
the speech act of greeting, saying Thank you is the speech act of showing gratitude,
saying Goodbye is the speech act of saying farewell, and saying I’m sorry is the speech
act of apologizing.
In this course you will study pragmatics, social and cultural context, politeness, and many
different types of speech acts in relation to English-speaking societies and cultures.
Course Content and Goals: In this class you will observe and review many different
types of speech acts and learn the true meaning of a speech act based on the context, the
people, and the culture. You will learn about the social rules and cultural norms of
English-speaking countries and how to perform speech acts based on those norms. You
will think and discuss about speech acts in your language and culture and compare them
to English. You will perform speech acts in English during class and practice socially
and culturally appropriate language forms when using speech acts in conversation in
English. You will be assessed on your understanding of pragmatics and speech act
behavior in English.
Assignments:
Pragmatics and Speech Acts Journal – 25 points
Role Play dialogue – 15 points
93
Transcription and analysis of video – 10 points
Midterm Exam – 25 points
Final Exam – 25 points
Schedule:
Unit
Unit 1
Unit 2
Content
-Pre-test/DCT
-Pragmatics
-Contextual factors
-Politeness
-Speech act groups
-Types of speech acts
Greetings
Unit 3
Farewells
Unit 4
Thanks
Unit 5
Invitations
Unit 6
Requests
Unit 7
Refusals
Unit 8
Apologies
Unit 9
Compliments
Unit 10
Compliment Responses
Unit 11
Complaints
Unit 12
Advice
Review
Final Exams
Goals
-Understand basic concepts of Pragmatics
-Understand contextual factors
-Understand politeness concepts
-Understand different groups and types of
speech acts
-Identify different speech acts
Understand and use expressions and
routines for greeting others in English.
Understand and use expressions and
routines for ending conversations and
saying goodbye in English.
Understand and use expressions and
routines for showing gratitude/thanking in
English.
Understand and use expressions and
routines for offering invitations in
English.
Understand and use expressions and
routines for making requests in English.
Understand and use expressions and
routines for refusing requests in English.
Understand and use expressions and
routines for making apologies in English.
Understand and use expressions and
routines for giving compliments in
English.
Understand and use expressions and
routines for responding to compliments in
English.
Understand and use expressions and
routines for making complaints in
English.
Understand and use expressions and
routines for giving advice in English.
Post-test/DCT